asana_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is a bare one-liner. It does not disclose permission/auth requirements, whether the caller becomes a project member, side effects, or what happens if name collides. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is as short as it can be while still stating the action and scope, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum note the workspace-vs-team requirement or the creation's side effects. It mentions the two scopes only in passing and omits any behavioral or prerequisite context, leaving the agent to derive everything from the schema.

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 field (including the color enum values, default_view, privacy_setting, opt_fields) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the lifting.

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+resource ('Create a new project') and names the two container scopes (workspace or team), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like asana_get_project or asana_search_projects, but the create verb is inherently distinct, so this is clear rather than exceptional.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as asana_search_projects (to find existing projects before creating) or when a team GID is mandatory. The only hint that 'team' is required for organization workspaces lives in the schema, not the description.

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