SD Elements MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it describes interactive prompting behavior for missing name/profile, automatic profile detection from name/description, and fallback to user selection. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens on success.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences, each adding distinct value: the core action, handling of unspecified name, and handling of unspecified profile with detection logic. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers interactive behaviors well but lacks information on required permissions, error conditions, or the structure of the created project. It is moderately complete given the complexity but has notable gaps in mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, providing baseline documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds some semantics by explaining how 'name' and 'profile_id' (via profile detection) are handled when unspecified, but does not elaborate on other parameters like 'application_id' or 'phase_id' beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new project') and resource ('in SD Elements'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_application' or 'create_project_from_code' which create different resources or use different methods.

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 through its conditional logic (e.g., when name/profile are unspecified), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project_from_code' or 'update_project', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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