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

Annotations only declare write/non-destructive/non-open-world; the description adds real behavior beyond them by disclosing that similar existing projects are checked and a confirmation prompt is raised. It still omits permissions needed, idempotency of name/key, and what happens if confirmation is declined.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the notable side effect. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

For a mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the creation action and the confirmation behavior but says nothing about what is returned (project identifier) or what the context parameter's mandatory-looking requirement means in practice. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema already documents key derivation, main_url, context, and force_create in detail. The description only restates that main_url is optional, adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a new project') plus the optional main_url, which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_project or import_repository, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies when to use it (adding a new project, with optional main_url for AI crawl) and notes a similarity check triggers a confirmation prompt. There is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., when to use force_create vs. waiting for the confirmation, or when to prefer update_project).

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