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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: creating the project changes the active project context. That is a key state mutation not captured by readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint. It does not describe error behavior or what happens to a previously active project, but the main side effect is clearly communicated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It states the creation action and the active-project side effect efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter schema, available annotations, and output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. The main omission is an explicit comparison to select_project, but the active-project side effect covers the critical workflow distinction.

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 100%, so the single name parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, formatting, or semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it creates a new project. It also adds the important side effect that the project becomes active, which distinguishes this from simply selecting an existing project, though it does not explicitly name the sibling select_project.

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?

It gives clear usage context by explaining that following create_* calls will land in the newly created active project. It does not describe exclusions or explicitly say when to use select_project instead, but the intended workflow is clear.

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