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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: projects carry an app_url pointing to the dashboard, and the timeline (Gantt) is plan-gated, redirecting non-plan users to a billing page. This is substantial extra information beyond the basic readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, though it could further mention idempotency or error behavior.

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 reasonably concise for the amount of information it conveys. Every sentence adds some value, such as the URL structure and plan-gating behavior, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers key aspects of project creation, including the company context, required fields, and plan-gated timeline. However, it does not explain the return value or response format, which is significant given there is no output schema. It also omits permission requirements or potential failure modes.

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 description mentions company_id as a path parameter and states that a title is required, adding meaning over the schema. However, it does not explain the 'description' or 'is_archivied' parameters, and the schema coverage is low (0%), so the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new project inside a company' and explains the project's role as grouping tasks, sprints, and board columns. It also mentions the required title and the app_url, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like create_tasks or create_sprints.

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 context of when to use the tool is implied: creating a project within a company and providing at least a title. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as create_tasks or create_sprints, leaving the usage guidance to inference rather than direct instruction.

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