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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds substantial behavioral details: required fields, slug format constraints, uniqueness with rejection behavior (including returning existing slugs), optional fields with defaults, and return information (id, slug, webUrl). This goes well beyond the 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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then required, optional, return, and uniqueness. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers required vs optional fields, constraints, defaults, and what is returned. It also explains the unusual duplicate handling. This is complete for a create operation.

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 100%, but the description enhances parameter understanding by explaining format (lowercase a-z, 0-9, hyphens), defaults (status default active), and the structure of sourceRef. It compiles the parameter list in a readable way that the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new project container for goals.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like project-get, project-update, and project-delete by stating what it creates and for what purpose.

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 clearly implies the usage: call this to create a project. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other project tools or provide exclusions/alternatives. The context signals sibling tools but the description does not reference them.

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