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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses two important behaviors: the new API key is not returned, and a duplicate name returns code live_project_exists without creating anything. This meaningfully helps an agent anticipate response and failure behavior, though permissions and broader side effects are not covered.

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 compact and front-loads the create action, followed by the usage constraint and failure behavior. The sentence about the first project appearing on list/get/create-stream is slightly awkward but carries useful context.

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 one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the duplicate-name failure and API-key omission, leaving only minor details such as permissions unspecified.

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%, so the single name parameter is already documented. The description adds relevant uniqueness behavior around names, but does not add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

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 and resource: create a live project, specifically an additional one. It distinguishes the new project from the first project already exposed through list/get/create-stream, though it does not explicitly contrast with every sibling such as create_live_stream.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition: call this only when the user asks for one. It implies this is not for retrieving the existing first project, but does not name alternative tools like list_live_projects or get_live_project explicitly.

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