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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the key side effect: this creates a live page where the user sees the BOM, 'every step you take', quotes and orders — an important transparency signal that the project is user-visible. It omits auth/permission requirements and idempotency (what happens if called twice for the same build), keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return values, then the workflow instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing repeats the title or schema.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description usefully explains the two return values in user-facing terms (dashboard_url is a live page, project_id threads through later calls). Combined with full schema coverage, the definition is nearly complete; only permission/duplicate-creation behavior is unaddressed for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 all three parameters (name, reason, description) are already fully documented with examples, and the description adds no further semantics about them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a project') and pins the scope to 'one hardware build', which is unmistakably different from the BOM, parts, and order siblings. It also names the two returned identifiers, so the agent knows exactly what artifact it produces.

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?

Gives explicit downstream usage: 'Give the user the link and pass project_id to every later call for this build', which establishes this as the entry-point step of a workflow. It does not name a when-not-to-use condition or a concrete alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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