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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and is destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by stating that duplicate project names are refused and that the operation is scoped to the authenticated organization. This is adequate for a create operation, though error behavior is not detailed.

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?

Two sentences contain the core purpose and a key constraint with no redundant wording. The action is front-loaded and 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 create tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description plus structured data covers required parameters, key behavior, and organizational scope. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so all three parameters are already documented structurally. The description only adds a high-level restatement that additional locales are optional and the default locale is included automatically, which is helpful but not essential.

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 ('Create') with a concrete resource ('a MultiLocale project') and adds meaningful detail about default and additional locales. This clearly separates it from siblings like add_locale, add_phrase, and update_project.

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 frames this as the tool for creating a new project and notes the duplicate-name refusal, so an agent can identify the right invocation context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and resource make the intended use apparent.

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