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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: without a Plus subscription the number of projects is capped and the call will be refused with an explanatory error. It omits what a successful call returns (presumably the new project ID needed for follow-up calls) and whether tag creation is a side effect.

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 short sentences with the constraint front-loaded after the purpose; nothing is padded. The parenthetical "(le refus le dit)" is slightly cryptic but does signal that the error message itself explains the limit.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, so the description should explain defaults, side effects and the returned identifier. Instead it covers only a quota warning, leaving the agent without the context needed to chain a create into a subsequent update or get.

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 86%, so the schema already carries parameter meaning (title, tags auto-created, space_id defaulting to the goal's space, date formats). The description contributes no additional parameter semantics. 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?

"Créer un projet" states a verb and a resource, but it is a verbatim restatement of the tool title and adds no scoping detail. With siblings like dandori_create_goal, dandori_create_contract and dandori_create_task, the description gives the agent nothing to distinguish what a "projet" is versus those other creatable entities.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to dandori_update_project for later edits or dandori_get_project for retrieval. The only constraint offered is the free-plan quota, which tells the agent when creation may fail, not when this tool is the right choice.

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