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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, and openWorld=false. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: the call consumes the plan's project quota, which an agent could not infer from the schema or 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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it creates, a cost side-effect, and a routing alternative. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 4-parameter creation tool with full schema coverage and covered safety annotations, the definition covers purpose, cost, and alternatives. The one omission is what is returned (e.g., the new project's identifier), which matters since there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents name, files, settings, and description thoroughly. The description's phrase "optionally seeded with a file map" only lightly reinforces the files parameter and adds no format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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, empty project") and immediately qualifies the scope with the optional file-map seeding. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like use_template, duplicate_project, and import_artifact because it emphasizes starting empty.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path ("To start from a starter instead, use use_template"), which is the most likely confusion point. It does not address other plausible alternatives such as duplicate_project or import_artifact, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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