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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the project is created 'empty' and 'private', and creation is gated on caller permissions. Annotations already cover the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for the privacy and authorization disclosures.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, then a clarifying clause and the permission caveat. Efficient, though the stacked em-dash clause makes it slightly dense.

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 create tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover safety, the description is adequate: it says what is created, its privacy, and the permission requirement. It falls short only on parameter guidance (basemap IDs and owner handle are entirely unexplained).

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them — no mention of ownerHandle, title, or the light/dark basemap UUIDs. Only a faint hint that the project starts empty, which is not a parameter at all.

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+resource ('Create an empty private project') and clarifies the resource's role (geospatial workspace holding layers, datasets, styles, analysis results). This cleanly separates it from siblings like geobble_project_create_theme or geobble_collection_create.

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 precondition — the caller must be able to create under the target account — which is useful routing context. But it never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., duplicating an existing project) or what happens if the account lacks create rights.

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