projects_create_external_serviceAdd an external service line to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| status | No | Planned | |
| agreement | No | No | |
| project_id | Yes | ||
| assignee_id | No | ||
| is_billable | No | ||
| budgeted_cost | No | ||
| markup_percentage | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds minor context by framing the action as adding a line item to a project, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as whether duplicates are allowed, how defaults apply, or what happens after creation.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to scan, though its brevity comes at the cost of omitted useful detail.
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 create tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and only minimal annotations, one short sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain required fields, default behaviors, optional field semantics, or the expected result of the operation.
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 0% and the description mentions none of the 9 parameters. It does not explain the meaning of name, notes, status, agreement, assignee_id, is_billable, budgeted_cost, or markup_percentage, so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add an external service line to a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from related project tools like material, risk, or pricing group creation, and from update/delete external service tools. It is not a pure tautology because it adds the 'line to a project' scoping.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as projects_update_external_service, projects_get_external_services, or other projects_create_* tools. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.
The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.
With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.
The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.