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 burden. 'Create' implies a persistent mutation, but the description does not disclose permissions, side effects, validation failures, or reversibility. Some of this is covered in the schema, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is arguably too minimal for a mutation tool with no annotations, but it is concise and readable.

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 100% schema coverage and required parameters documented, an agent can construct a valid call. However, there is no output schema, no behavioral disclosure, and no usage guidance, so the description alone is not complete and relies heavily on the schema for meaningful context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies; the description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema already documents name, identifier, docs_view, and project_manager, including the active-member constraint and the get_workspace_members hint, so no additional parameter meaning is required from the description.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource ('create' + 'project'), making the core action unambiguous and distinguishing it from read-only siblings like get_projects and other create_* tools. It does not add scope or key fields, but the resource is clear enough for selection.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_projects or get_project_summary. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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