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

Beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation, the description discloses that nothing is built or served and that the address only answers after the first publish. This is valuable behavioral context. It doesn't discuss permissions or idempotency, but for a create tool this is a minor gap.

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 concise sentences with the core action first, followed by the sibling alternative and the key behavioral caveat. No wasted words and the structure supports quick understanding.

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?

Given the low complexity, complete input schema, and existing output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide when and how to call this tool. The workflow and non-availability behavior are clearly stated.

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 the schema already documents both name and organization in detail. The description adds workflow context but no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline of 3.

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 and resource: 'Create an empty project with no repository'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from import_repo, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: for empty projects use this tool, for projects from a repository use import_repo. It also clarifies that this is a prerequisite for a later publish_site or deploy.

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