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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them by disclosing that the operation is asynchronous (a queued hosted job) and requires get_job to retrieve the result.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the async follow-up instruction immediately after. Every clause 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 no-output-schema async mutation tool, the description covers the key operational fact (job queueing plus get_job). It could mention the workspace token requirement or that the project is created within a workspace, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%; requestId and workspaceToken are documented in-schema, but name and idempotencyKey are not. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the gap, sitting below the baseline-3 case.

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 plus a distinguishing qualifier: 'empty, versioned research project', which separates it from import_project (which brings in existing content). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear operational context: the call queues a hosted job and the result must be fetched via get_job, which routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over import_project or create_workspace.

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