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

The description supplements the annotations by explaining the idempotent retry behavior and the fact that no work or tickets are created. It is consistent with the idempotentHint, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false annotations, adding useful side-effect context.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the most important operational caveats.

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?

Given the simple create action, the description covers the essential behavior, idempotency, and non-effects. It does not explain the meaning of all parameters, but the output schema is present and the core usage context is sufficient.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the five parameters, and the description only meaningfully addresses request_id. Parameters like name, goals, summary, and repository_url receive no explanation, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the action ('Create'), the object ('owner-private project'), and the key content ('intent and goals'). It distinguishes this tool from related siblings like project_update and project_document_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?

The description gives explicit guidance to persist request_id before calling and to retry with the exact input after uncertain responses, which is valuable operational direction. It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('Does not start work or create tickets'), though it does not name an explicit alternative tool for those cases.

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