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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description reinforces this with an explicit "WRITE:" label. More valuably, it discloses side effects the annotations cannot: a default status and a first task board are created, and the new record is returned. It does not mention permission/auth requirements, but the side-effect disclosure is substantive.

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 "WRITE:" marker, and every clause carries information (effect, side effects, follow-up tool, return value, endpoint). No filler or repetition of schema data.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation, its automatic side effects, and the return value, while the schema covers all field semantics. It lacks guidance on resolving clientId/clientType before calling, which is the one gap an agent might trip on.

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 every parameter (name, dueDate, clientId, clientType, startDate, descriptionHTML) is already documented with format patterns and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as whether clientType defaults are enforced server-side, so the 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?

"WRITE: create a project" gives a specific verb and resource, and the description adds scope details (default status, first task board, POST /projects) that make the operation unambiguous. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling creates like plutio_create_task, but the resource noun does the disambiguation implicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives or what preconditions apply (e.g. whether clientId must be resolved first via plutio_list_people or plutio_list_companies). The only routing hint is a follow-up pointer: use plutio_list_task_boards to find the auto-created board.

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