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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Name must be unique per board' (failure condition) and 'Color defaults to a rotating palette pick' (default behavior). This contextualizes side effects without contradicting annotations.

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 no filler. The usage trigger is front-loaded, followed by key constraints and defaults. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, all parameter semantics, and key behavioral constraints. It does not explain what the response is, but that is less critical given the tool's simplicity and absent 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 coverage is 67%, and the name parameter has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining name uniqueness, color default, and url's favicon effect, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions for color and url.

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 ('add' / 'create') and resource ('project context') with a concrete example ('add a project for Organicus'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_task and create_sprint by focusing solely on projects.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants a new project context,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mention of 'new project' implies this is not for updating existing projects (which would be update_project).

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