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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it doesn't mention idempotency, permissions, side effects, or error cases. Since readOnlyHint=false already signals a write operation, the description provides no additional transparency about what happens when the project is created.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though this brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is far too minimal to inform correct usage. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and any context about how 'sources' or 'team_id' should be used.

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 only 17% (only team_id has a schema description), and the tool description doesn't explain any of the six parameters, including required 'name' or the 'sources', 'tags', 'category', and 'description' fields. The agent must guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('Projects workspace'), with a qualifier ('for a product, app, or codebase') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow or create_goal. It clearly states what the tool does.

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 a use case (creating a workspace for product/app/codebase) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It gives some context but not enough to fully direct an agent.

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