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

The annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the description only needs to add extra context. It does so usefully by disclosing the side effect of selecting the new project for navigation, the fact that a new project ID is returned, and the caveat that a shorts project will not automatically select story arcs or start editing.

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 tight sentences with the core action first, then the return value, then a caveat that earns its place by preventing an agent from assuming edits begin automatically. There is no filler, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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?

The tool is simple, with no required parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, and the description still states the return value and the navigation side effect. The main remaining gap is guidance on when to choose it over sibling project tools and what the title parameter does.

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?

The schema covers the 'kind' parameter in detail with a default and rationale, but the 'title' parameter is undocumented, leaving coverage at 50%. The description adds some meaning by naming the two project kinds (editing versus podcast-shorts intake) that correspond to the enum, but it says nothing about the title parameter, so it neither fills the gap nor adds much 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Creates an empty editing project or podcast-shorts intake project") and names both project types, which lets an agent separate it from open_project, list_projects, and make_shorts without opening the schema.

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?

It implies usage by contrasting the two kinds of projects it can create and by saying that creating a shorts project does not start editing, but it never says when to use this tool instead of open_project, list_projects, or make_shorts, nor does it state prerequisites such as when a project must already exist.

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