Runn: create project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the creation action and the template duplication behavior, and it notes the requirement of name + clientId in standard mode. However, it does not disclose side effects, return value, or any permission prerequisites, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('Create a project'). It efficiently conveys the main usage modes without unnecessary filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 13 parameters and a nested object with no output schema, the description covers the two main creation paths but omits many other parameters and does not mention the return value or response behavior. It is workable for an agent, but leaves gaps especially in understanding optional fields and expected output.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 15%, the description partially compensates by explaining the key parameters: name, clientId, and the fromTemplate object with templateId and startDate. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, particularly the two-mode logic. However, most parameters (emoji, budget, rateType, etc.) are undocumented, making the description insufficient for fully understanding all inputs.

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 'Create a project' with the API endpoint 'POST /projects', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_project and get_project by focusing on creation. The mention of standard vs template modes further clarifies the two distinct creation paths.

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 clear usage context by outlining two modes: standard requires name + clientId, and alternative fromTemplate requires templateId + startDate. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the modes serve as implicit guidelines for when each is appropriate.

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