Create Project

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the team GID requirement and that it returns the created project object. This is meaningful disclosure of constraints and return behavior, though it does not elaborate on side effects or permission requirements.

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 action, followed by the key prerequisite and return value. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler, achieving ideal conciseness.

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 create operation with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, where it applies, the critical team GID requirement, and what it returns. It does not cover potential errors or permission caveats, but given the rich schema and annotations, this is a reasonable level of completeness, slightly above minimal.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the team GID requirement already in the schema and adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema's property descriptions already offer. Thus it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action 'Create a new project in a workspace' with a specific verb+resource, and adds scoping ('in a workspace') and a key prerequisite (team GID for organization workspaces). This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_portfolio or create_task.

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 provides context on where the tool applies ('in a workspace') and when a team GID is required ('In organization workspaces (most)'), which helps the agent decide prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use create_portfolio instead), so it lacks the explicit when-not guidance for a full 5.

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