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

Goes well beyond the minimal annotations by disclosing the database trigger that keeps a project in Planning, the manager_id requirement tied to the nightly job and awaiting-decision lists, and the open_questions response behavior where missing fields are not errors but still need user follow-up. These are behavioral side effects an agent must know to invoke and follow up correctly.

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?

Despite being dense, the description is front-loaded with the one-line purpose and organized around REVENUE RULES and required-field calls. Each sentence adds necessary conditional or behavioral information, with no 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 an 18-parameter create with no output schema, the description addresses the hard parts: required fields (start_date, end_date, manager_id), status and budget_type domains, the revenue trigger, pricing_groups, and open_questions. Optional fields are left to the schema, which is acceptable given the schema already documents them.

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 adds substantial meaning: exact status values, budget_type default, conditional revenue requirements per Fixed vs Time/Time&Material, pricing_groups minimum structure, and revenue_ceiling as an optional cap. However, it states 'budget_type ... (default Fixed)' while the schema property says 'Required - ask the user rather than assuming,' an inconsistency that prevents a top score.

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?

Starts with 'Create a new project,' a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes this top-level creation tool from the sibling sub-resource creators such as projects_create_material and projects_create_risk. It then scopes the object with status, budget_type, and required dates, leaving no doubt about what is being created.

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?

Provides clear context for when creation is appropriate: a project may be created in Planning before a price is agreed, and any status other than Planning requires revenue or pricing_groups depending on budget_type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases such as projects_update, so it stops short of a 5.

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