create_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new project,' implying a mutation but omitting any side effects, authentication requirements, or failure conditions such as duplicate project names. This is minimal transparency.

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 to the point: one purpose sentence followed by a short Args list. No redundant or filler text is present.

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 simple create operation with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and all parameter nuances. It falls slightly short in explaining when to choose this over related project tools, but is otherwise adequate for invocation.

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 Args descriptions add clear value beyond the schema: color is specified as a hex format, and view_mode enumerates its allowed values (list, kanban, or timeline). This fully compensates for the schema's 0% property description coverage, though the name parameter is only trivially described.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new project in TickTick'), clearly identifying what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_tasks and update_projects by specifying 'new 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus updating or deleting projects. There are no alternative tool references or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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