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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), this description discloses server-side slug validation, plan-based active-project limits with error behavior, ACCOUNT-scoped token and config scope requirements, and the exact return shape. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 longer than a simple one-liner, but every sentence carries decision-relevant information: purpose, validation behavior, plan limits, alternative routing, auth requirements, return value, and next step. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations that only indicate mutability, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: what it does, when to avoid it, required permissions, failure modes, return shape, and the follow-up action. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, name, is already described in the schema with length constraints and slug derivation. The description's mention of slug derivation and validation adds marginal behavioral context but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb (create) and resource (project), explains the purpose of bootstrapping from a fresh account, and clearly differentiates create_project from create_project_token and the project-listing siblings. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and what it is not for.

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?

It explicitly states when to skip this tool ('If an existing project can host this integration') and directs the agent to the appropriate alternative (create_project_token). It also discloses plan limits, required token scope, and the recommended next step, giving clear decision-making context.

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