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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (mutation, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add what they cannot. It does: it discloses the duplicate-name conflict failure mode and redirects to list_projects, which is exactly the kind of runtime behavior an agent needs. It doesn't mention permission requirements or whether the creator becomes owner, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the action, then the failure mode, then the dependency rationale. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, conflict behavior, and the cross-tool dependency, so the essential call-time knowledge is present. Only minor gaps remain, such as ownership semantics and whether the conflicting check is case-sensitive.

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 coverage is 0%, but with only two self-describing fields (name, description) the burden is light. The description does add real semantics for name — it must be unique among active projects and conflicts are reported — but says nothing about how description is used or whether the name can collide with archived projects.

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?

"Create a shared task project" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the remainder of the description ties it to distinct siblings: list_projects for inspection and create_task for the downstream need. An agent can tell this apart from list_projects or update_task without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is explicitly conditioned: call it when no suitable project exists, check list_projects when a name may already be taken, and it exists to unblock create_task. That names both the alternative and the selection condition rather than leaving it to inference.

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