redmine_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. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether creation triggers notifications), permissions required, or what happens on success. The mention of 'Honors REDMINE_MCP_READ_ONLY' is a constraint but does not describe behavioral traits like mutation or its consequences.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence and a well-organized list of arguments. No redundant information, though the list format is straightforward and efficient.

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?

Despite covering parameters well, the description lacks key context: it does not mention return values (even though an output schema exists), error conditions, or integration with other tools. For a creation tool, knowing the response format (e.g., returns new project object) is important.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description completely compensates by explaining every parameter: required fields (name, identifier with format), optional fields with defaults (is_public, parent_id), and examples (enabled_module_names). This is essential for correct invocation.

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 new project,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like redmine_delete_project, redmine_update_project, and other create tools (e.g., redmine_create_issue) by focusing on project creation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for project management (update, delete, archive), the description should clarify that this is only for creation and not for modifications, but it does not.

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