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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description largely restates the write and non-idempotent traits. It does add genuinely new context ('Creates a new project each call', default status ACTIVE, GraphQL mutation createProject), but says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-name behavior, or the returned object.

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?

Front-loaded 'WRITE:' prefix immediately signals the operation class, and every clause (fields, default, non-idempotency, underlying mutation) carries distinct information with no filler.

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 2-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. The main remaining gap is that with no output schema, it does not say what a successful call returns (e.g. the new project's id) so the agent can chain to kiwihr_get_project.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the ACTIVE enum meaning. The description adds only the default value (ACTIVE) beyond the schema, which keeps it at the baseline rather than above it.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('create a time-tracking project') with the two supported fields and an explicit default. It is distinguishable from siblings like kiwihr_update_project and kiwihr_get_project by the write-a-new-record verb, though no sibling is named as an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'WRITE: create' framing and the non-idempotent note, so an agent can infer this is for creating rather than updating. However, nothing states when to prefer kiwihr_update_project or how to check whether a project already exists (e.g. via kiwihr_list_projects).

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