Criar projeto no Flow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond them: it says the call costs no credits and discloses the project-scoping side effect on characters. It still does not say what the call returns or how the new project is identified afterwards.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the cost note, then the caveat. Every sentence carries information; only the example parenthetical is optional padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so a note on what is returned (e.g., the new project identifier needed for later calls) would be the missing piece. Otherwise the cost profile, prerequisite and scoping behavior are all covered for a two-parameter creation tool.

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% and both parameters (nome, tornar_padrao) are documented in the schema. The description only restates that the project takes the given name and says nothing about tornar_padrao or the name-uniqueness / 80-char constraint, so it adds little over 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Cria um projeto novo no Google Flow com o nome dado") plus a concrete grouping example (one per video or series). The resource distinguishes it from list/character tools, though it never names a sibling it could be confused with.

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?

Gives the selection intent (a project per video or per series) and a concrete prerequisite: characters are project-scoped, so in a new project you must recreate them with flow_personagem_criar before use. Names that alternative explicitly, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use case.

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