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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing uniqueness semantics (case- and whitespace-insensitive per owner), a specific error code, and a no-retry/no-modify policy. That is exactly the mutation-context an agent needs and cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the gating condition, then proceeds in priority order through error handling and escalation. The closing sentence partially restates the no-retry guidance, but the redundancy is intentional for a destructive-adjacent operation and costs little.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described. For a one-parameter create tool, the description covers invocation conditions, collision behavior, and user-consent boundaries — nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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?

The single parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by defining name normalization rules — uniqueness is per owner and ignores case and leading/trailing spaces — which directly affects how the agent should construct and compare names. It doesn't cover the 120-char bound explicitly, but the schema supplies that.

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 PaperDock project') and adds the scope of what the call produces ('with a starter main.tex'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_file, list_projects, and create_comment.

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 an explicit gating condition ('only when the user explicitly asks') plus a concrete error-recovery path: on PROJECT_NAME_ALREADY_EXISTS, do not retry, call list_projects instead, and ask the user if intent is unclear. Alternatives and when-not-to-use are named directly rather than implied.

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