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

Adds a genuinely important behavioral fact beyond the annotations: nothing is created unless confirm is true, which tells the agent this is a gated, founder-consent-bound mutation. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description could still mention that repeat calls create duplicates or what happens on failure, hence not 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the creation precondition front-loaded and the confirm requirement immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 three-parameter creation tool with annotations covering safety, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient to call it correctly. It omits any indication of what a successful call returns (no output schema exists) or what happens if a project already exists, which are the only real gaps.

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 100%, so name, confirm, and timezone are already fully documented, and the description only restates the confirm gating. It adds no meaning about name constraints or the timezone's role beyond what the schema says, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Relia project') plus a precondition ('for a repository that has none yet') that separates it from the read-only relia_projects sibling. It does not name the sibling to use when a project already exists, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear triggering context: call this only when a repository has no project yet, and only with confirm: true. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g., relia_projects or relia_setup) for the already-exists case, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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