create_project

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining when organization_id is required and the error behavior, plus the visibility semantics of private vs normal projects. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb, and each sentence adds distinct contextual information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers key creation nuances (org_id and privacy) but omits expected behavior like return value, permission requirements, or the purpose of the 'instructions' parameter. Given the sparse schema and annotations, it is functional but not fully comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for organization_id (needed only in multi-org accounts) and is_private (visibility), but it provides no explanation for name, description, or instructions, leaving some parameters without added meaning.

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 starts with 'Create a project,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project or delete_project. It adds context about organization_id and project visibility, reinforcing its purpose.

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 use for creating a new project and provides situational guidance for organization_id and is_private, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like update_project or list_projects.

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