project_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a project is created and that category_id is required, but does not explain what happens on success (e.g., returns the project ID?), error conditions, or side effects. Since it is a create operation, the description should reveal expected behavior more explicitly.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loading the core action and the key requirement. It is efficient with no redundant words, but could slightly expand on parameter details without becoming verbose.

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 tool's low complexity (3 simple params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and the critical requirement of category_id, but lacks any guidance on return value or error handling. For a simple create tool, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains 'name', 'category_id', and 'description'. The description adds a small hint that category_id is important (required), but doesn't add meaning about 'name' or 'description' beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict or add significant value.

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 '创建新项目，需要指定所属分类ID' clearly states the action (create a new project) and a key requirement (must specify category_id). It differentiates from siblings like project_list and project_delete by indicating creation. However, it does not mention the 'name' parameter being required, and it is a bit sparse.

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?

The description implies usage for creating a new project, and the requirement for category_id gives context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like checking if the category exists. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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