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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the hard limit of 3, the fail-silent behavior ("this tool creates nothing"), and the default stack/model applied when omitted. The mention that it starts building the project also flags an asynchronous side effect the annotations cannot express.

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?

Defaults and the core action are front-loaded, and the limit is stated before the do-not-call instruction, which is the right order. The point is stated twice ("If it is greater than 3, this tool creates nothing" and "Do not call this tool when the user asked for more than 3 projects"), a mild redundancy that costs a little tightness.

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?

Return values need no explanation because an output schema exists, and the description covers defaults, the hard cap, and the requested_count semantics. The one notable omission is what happens after creation, i.e., that the build is asynchronous and progress is tracked via projects_builds_list, which an agent would need to close the loop.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that requested_count is the count from the *current message* and instructs "Pass the real number," explaining why a single-project tool takes a count at all (it is a guard that fails when >3). It also restates the defaults for stack and model, which the schema already lists, so it is at the top of the useful range rather than beyond it.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Create one Bunstation project from a prompt and start building it"), plus the immediate side effect of kicking off a build. It does not distinguish itself from sibling creation paths such as templates_use, which also appears to produce projects, so an agent must infer that difference.

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 an explicit exclusion: "Do not call this tool when the user asked for more than 3 projects," and additionally prescribes what to do instead (tell the user the maximum is 3). The conditions that select this tool versus not calling it are stated outright rather than implied.

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