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

The description discloses important side effects: it mints a schema_namespace and an API key that is returned only once. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the non-idempotent, one-time nature of 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?

The description is compact and information-dense: purpose, restrictions, side effects, and intended use are all communicated in two sentences without unnecessary detail.

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 is sufficient for the intended use: it names required context, side effects, and the one-time API key return. It does not describe the full response shape or error conditions, but the lack of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 covers 80% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds context about schema_namespace and API key creation but does not explain each parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it neither harms nor significantly improves parameter understanding.

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 action ('Create a NEW project'), the target resource, and the distinguishing context ('domain-admin keys only; plan-gated'). It also emphasizes 'fresh app', making the purpose distinct from update/replace tools.

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 context: 'Use for a fresh app' and 'NEW project' imply this is not for existing projects. It also notes access and plan restrictions, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as build_update_project or build_replace_project.

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