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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds an authorization requirement ('Requires a role that can manage projects') and the optional side effect of attaching teams, which are not captured in 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the permission caveat is delivered efficiently in the second sentence.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers selection context, the optional teams behavior, and the permission prerequisite. It does not mention return values or duplicate/conflict behavior, but the schema and annotations cover most invocation details.

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?

All 9 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond noting that teams can be attached. The schema carries the descriptive load, meeting the baseline without adding significant extra meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'project' and adds the optional team-attachment behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_project, archive_project, and list_projects.

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?

The description implies the obvious use—creating a new project—and provides a prerequisite ('Requires a role that can manage projects'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as update_project for modifying an existing project.

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