apps_script_create_project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds a small but useful behavioral note about preserving the returned scriptId for future use. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context beyond annotations but not substantial detail.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the instruction about the returned scriptId is a necessary operational detail. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter semantics, return value format (beyond mentioning scriptId), and any side effects or constraints. The annotations cover safety (not read-only, not destructive), but the description does not fully equip an agent to call the tool correctly without additional information.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'title' or 'parentId' parameters beyond the phrase 'standalone or container-bound,' which only vaguely hints at the role of parentId. With no parameter documentation in the schema or description, the agent is left to infer parameter meaning, which is inadequate for a tool with a required parameter.

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') and the resource ('Apps Script project'), and distinguishes between standalone and container-bound variants. This differentiates it from sibling tools like apps_script_get_project or apps_script_update_content, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 when to use this tool (when creating a new project) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It does not provide exclusions or prerequisites, such as needing an existing container for container-bound projects. The instruction to 'Preserve the returned scriptId' hints at a follow-up action but does not guide the agent on selecting this over other tools.

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