Runn: create phase

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

The description discloses that this is a mutating POST operation, which indicates a write action. However, it omits details about permissions, error behavior, or prerequisites like project existence. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but the core mutation is clearly conveyed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and endpoint, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently includes required fields and color constraints.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple create action, covering the action, endpoint, and key parameters. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, and prerequisites such as project existence. Given no output schema or annotations, slightly more context would make it fully complete.

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 only has a description for color, and the description text adds that color defaults to #67D0D5 and lists required fields. It does not explain projectId or date formats beyond the schema's pattern, but parameter names are self-explanatory. The description partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a phase on a project'), and includes the endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_phase and create_milestone by specifying phase 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?

The description gives clear context by listing required fields (name, startDate, endDate) and the endpoint, implying when this tool should be used to add a phase. It does not explicitly exclude any scenarios or mention alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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