create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something (implying mutation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 'create' action.

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 brief and to the point with two sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and follows with parameter details. However, the second sentence could be structured more clearly as it mixes parameter explanations without proper formatting.

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 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It covers only 2 of 7 parameters and provides no behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should better document parameters and usage 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 0%, so the schema provides only titles with no descriptions. The description mentions two parameters (project_type and billing_method) and provides their possible values, but ignores the other 5 parameters (title, client_id, description, budget, due_date). This partial coverage leaves most parameters undocumented and doesn't adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the tool creates a project, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_client' or 'create_estimate' beyond the resource name. The additional details about project_type and billing_method provide some specificity but don't fully differentiate the tool's purpose from other creation tools in the server.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a client_id), when this tool is appropriate versus other creation tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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