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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the administrative permission requirement and advising the use of a stable idempotency_key for retries. This goes beyond what annotations state, enriching the agent's understanding of preconditions and retry behavior. No contradiction with 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 two short sentences that front-load the core action ('Create a website project') and immediately follow with essential operational guidance. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with three parameters, a full schema, an existing output schema, and annotations covering idempotency, the description adds permission requirements and retry guidance, which are the missing contextual pieces. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 schema fully describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the idempotency_key usage but adds no new meaning about the name or domain parameters. It slightly enhances the schema's explanation of retries without introducing additional semantic depth.

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 website project') which clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, update, or delete projects. It is precise but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear context (creation) and notes prerequisites (administrative access and an account-wide grant), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. It implies usage for creating projects but lacks explicit exclusions, earning a middle score.

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