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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: the mapping is incomplete until graph publication, and it never creates or modifies Git/GitHub resources. This goes beyond annotations and is essential for correct invocation. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and then adds contextual steps and exclusions. It is efficient and readable, though slightly dense. It earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description lacks essential parameter semantics and does not cover prerequisites, return values, or error conditions. While annotations cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, the missing parameter explanations and the lack of any output guidance make it incomplete for a tool with four required parameters and no schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters (displayName, projectType, types, idempotencyKey). However, the description mentions none of them and gives no hints about their meanings or formats. The agent is left entirely to infer from schema patterns, which is insufficient for correct use.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'actor-owned Brain Scanner project', and specifies it is the first step of mapping a locally inspected project. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting that graph publication is still required and pointing to subsequent tools like update_scanner. The exclusion of Git/GitHub operations further sharpens the purpose.

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 gives clear usage context: it is the first step of mapping, and it instructs to continue with update_scanner or bounded chunked graph tools. It also states a negative guideline (never touches Git/GitHub). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_project, the step-based guidance and exclusions provide sufficient direction for an agent.

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