Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: the created board consumes a slot against the free plan's board limit, and the project is created in 'active' state. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements, so it is not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by quota impact and the alternative path. No filler; every sentence carries a distinct fact an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter create tool with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is built, the quota consequence, and the alternative for existing boards. It does not describe what is returned or how to reference the new project afterward, a minor gap given there is no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (title, clientId) are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only echoes the clientId semantics ('optionally for one of the user's clients') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new project') and pins down exactly what is produced: a board with the plain three-list layout plus project settings (active). It also differentiates from the update path by noting that converting an existing board is done via project settings, so an agent can separate this from create_board/update_project_settings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context (creating from scratch, optional client association) and one explicit redirect: 'To turn an existing board into a project, change its project settings.' It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings like create_project_from_template or create_sample_project, which an agent would also consider for project creation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.