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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful state context: graph publication is still required before mapping is complete, and it explicitly disclaims Git/GitHub side effects. It omits auth/permission requirements and what the created project looks like, keeping it short of a 5.

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 semicolon-separated clauses, front-loaded with the core action, then workflow continuation, then the negative scope. Efficient and mostly waste-free, though the dense run-on phrasing slightly reduces scanability.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value burden, and it only implies a project is created without describing the result. Behavioral and workflow context is solid, but the undocumented parameters leave the definition only adequate for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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 documented). The description mentions no parameters at all, so displayName, projectType, and types remain unexplained in both the schema and the description. With low coverage, the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new actor-owned Brain Scanner project') and situates it in a workflow ('first step of mapping a locally inspected project'), which an agent can act on. It differentiates from update_scanner and the chunked graph tools by sequencing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'create_project', leaving ambiguity about which creation tool applies.

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?

Clear context is provided: use it as the first step when mapping a locally inspected project, then continue with update_scanner or the bounded chunked graph tools. It also states a negative constraint (never creates/changes Git or GitHub resources). No explicit exclusion versus the similarly named create_project sibling, which is the main gap.

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