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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), so that burden is lifted. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotations: the operation only creates a catalog record and deliberately does not publish a graph or create a repository, and it discloses the return payload since no output schema exists.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the action and its scope limit come first, the routing advice second, the return value last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

It covers returns and operation scope, which matters given no output schema, but with four required parameters at 25% schema coverage the description leaves the parameter contract largely unexplained. Adequate for routing, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 25% (only idempotencyKey is annotated), so the description is expected to compensate for displayName, projectType, and types. It never mentions any of the four parameters, leaving an agent to guess at their meaning from name and JSON-Schema constraints 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?

States a specific verb+resource (create an owned project catalog record) and immediately bounds the scope by naming what it does NOT do: no graph publish, no repository creation. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling map_project, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 tells the agent to prefer map_project when beginning a mapping, and frames this tool as a compatibility alias, which is exactly the when-to-use/when-not distinction needed. The scope exclusions (no publishing, no repo) reinforce where this tool stops.

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