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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are minimal, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new project, that the name and scope must be proposed first, that scope is mandatory to prevent cross-contamination, and that the project can later be renamed or deleted. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't describe potential side effects beyond creation (e.g., file system changes) — a minor gap.

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 paragraph but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage conditions, then step-by-step instructions. It is a bit verbose, but every sentence adds value—no fluff. The key information (when to use, what to do first) is prominent.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how to proceed (propose first), and the outcome (project created, can be renamed/killed). It doesn't explain return values, but that's not expected without an output schema. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description enriches the meaning, especially for scope: 'Scope is mandatory: it is the sentence that stops one circle's material from being written into another.' It also clarifies that name is 'How people will call it' and instructs the agent to propose these to the human, adding practical semantic context beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Open a NEW project in Arroway, when the work at hand has no home.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and provides context that distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's for creating new projects when no existing one fits.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Use it when a read refuses an unknown project, or when you notice you have been working on something for a while with nowhere to write it.' It also instructs the agent to propose the name and scope to the human first and only call after agreement, and even tells the agent to say the project can be renamed or killed. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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