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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that creation is instant and uses no credits, while only design runs consume credits. It also explains the return shape ("Returns it in data, plus projectUrl") and the user-facing sharing behavior. These details add meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by return details and the next-step workflow. Every sentence contributes useful information about credits, projectUrl, or follow-up tools, with no waste.

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?

The tool has an output schema and rich annotations, but the description still adds the critical credit-cost context and the design/show_project workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call create_project correctly is missing.

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?

There is only one input parameter, name, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage. The description does not add syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate for a single well-documented parameter.

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 an empty project." It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling design tool by explaining that this creates an empty project and that design runs are the step that follows. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

The description gives an explicit workflow: "Pass data.id as projectId to design, then call show_project once the run completes." It also says to share projectUrl with the user, making the intended usage sequence clear. Alternatives and next steps are named directly.

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