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

Description says 'Create' while annotations declare destructiveHint=true, which is contradictory for a creation operation. No additional behavioral context such as permissions, side effects, or what gets destroyed is provided.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and optional field summary, then endpoint. No fluff, though the endpoint line is technical detail rather than agent-critical.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is too sparse. It omits required parameters, return behavior, and any behavioral caveats, leaving gaps an agent must fill from schema alone.

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?

Description mentions optional hourly task rate, budget, and due date, mapping to some parameters, but schema coverage is 63% and three parameters (public_notes, private_notes, budgeted_hours) are undocumented in both. The description adds marginal meaning 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?

States a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'project', and clarifies it's for a client with optional fields. Distinguishes from siblings by being a create operation, though it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like invoiceninja_create_task or invoiceninja_create_client, nor prerequisites or permissions. Only implies usage through the purpose statement.

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