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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), it explains the non-idempotency in concrete terms, that dates are auto-computed from startDate on a Mon-Fri calendar, that the output is an ordinary editable project, and that write permission is required. It does not describe any rate limits, failure modes, or atomicity if template data is invalid, which keeps it below 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 tight sentences with no filler: creation semantics and sibling pointer first, the date/calendar rule second, then the side-effect and permission warnings. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral surface: calendar-based date derivation, non-idempotency, permissions, and that the result is a normal editable project. It does not say what the response contains (e.g. the new project id the agent needs for follow-up calls), which is the main residual gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents templateId, startDate, key, name, tz, locale and workspaceId in detail; the baseline is therefore 3. The description adds genuine meaning only for startDate (all dates derive from it over a Mon-Fri calendar) and templateId (source of truth via list_templates), leaving the rest to the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new project from a template') and enumerates what gets instantiated (phases, tasks, durations, dependencies). It points at planitude_list_templates for discovery, but does not contrast itself with the close siblings planitude_create_project and planitude_create_project_from_plan, so an agent must infer the choice between the three.

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?

It gives a clear precondition (obtain a template via planitude_list_templates) and an explicit non-idempotency warning ('Calling it twice creates two projects'), plus the write-permission requirement. What is missing is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over creating a blank project or a project from a plan.

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