create_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It states the creation action but does not mention return values, whether the operation is idempotent, potential uniqueness constraints on project names, or authorization requirements. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and well-structured, using a short summary followed by a clear argument list. Every sentence adds useful 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?

With a simple 6-parameter creation tool and an output schema present, the description covers parameter semantics comprehensively. It lacks deeper context such as success/failure behavior, default handling beyond schema defaults, or relationships to other project operations, but overall is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: name, description, status with allowed values, date formats for start_date and due_date, and free-text notes. It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 specific verb+resource action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects, get_project, and update_project.

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 usage for creating a new project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over update_project or list_projects. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the decision to inference from the tool name.

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