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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the first-build side effect, the 72h temporary-project fallback when no permanent slot exists, the expires_at/notice reply shape, the partial-failure behavior (project_id returned even if the build fails to start), and the read-write token requirement. The auth prerequisite and non-idempotent creation semantics are exactly the kind of context annotations can't carry.

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?

Purpose and primary return values are front-loaded, and each subsequent clause adds distinct behavioral information. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every sentence earns its place; minor tightening possible around the temporary-project explanation.

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 12-parameter mutation with an output schema, this covers the remaining gaps an agent would care about: side effects, fallback behavior, partial-failure recovery, auth requirements, and the explicit out-of-scope operation. Nothing needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that — it restates that ref defaults to the default branch and that framework is auto-detected, both already present in the schema descriptions.

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+resource ("Create a new kad.dev project from a git repository URL") plus the side effect of triggering the first build. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like deploy_project (redeploy), list_projects (read), and delete_project (removal, explicitly noted as unavailable over MCP).

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 concrete routing guidance for the failure case ("retry with deploy_project") and clarifies that whole-project deletion must go through the dashboard/API. It does not give general when-to-use guidance versus list_projects or deploy_files, but for a creation tool the context is largely self-evident.

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