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

Annotations only mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds useful behavioral context: projects are scoped to a client workspace and the goal seeds intent inherited by tasks. It does not discuss duplicate handling, auth, or return behavior, but those are secondary for a create tool already annotated as non-destructive.

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?

Three short sentences: the action, the precondition, and the key guidance. It is front-loaded, scannable, and every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description gives the essential before-create workflow and a meaningful rule for setting goals. It omits what the call returns and how to disambiguate client vs client_id, but the schema covers some of that and sibling tools like get_project_context and list_projects provide follow-up paths.

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 exactly 50%, with goal, client, and brief_md already described. The description adds meaningful guidance for the goal parameter ('every task under it inherits the intent'), but it does not compensate for the undocumented name, deadline, or client_id parameters beyond what the schema types/formats provide.

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 concrete action ('Create') and resource ('a new project inside a client workspace') with concrete examples like Website and Google Ads. It clearly distinguishes this from list_projects and update_project, so an agent can identify the right tool 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance by saying to call list_projects first and only create a project when no existing one fits. It also names the relevant alternative, which is exactly the kind of decision guidance an agent needs.

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