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

Annotations already declare write/destructive/open-world and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds no consequences, permission requirements, idempotency caveats, or effects of creation. It lists fields rather than disclosing behavior, so it provides little beyond the annotations.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler. The terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification, so 4 rather than 5.

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 destructive create operation with 13 parameters and low schema documentation, the description leaves too much unspecified: required fields, enum/default behavior, and what creation returns are all absent. It is a high-level summary, not enough context for confident invocation.

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?

With only 23% schema description coverage across 13 parameters, the description would need to compensate, but it only groups 'number, type, stage, address and dates' and omits required name/customer_id semantics, defaults, enums, and the description field. It also calls the status field 'stage,' which could mislead.

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 phrase 'New project for a customer' makes the create-project intent clear, and the listed fields scope it beyond a generic create sibling. It does not explicitly distinguish create from update_project, get_project, or list_projects, so it stops short of top marks.

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?

No sentence tells the agent when to call this instead of update_project or another create_* tool, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The intended use is only implied by 'New project'.

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