Create project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, which correctly signals this is a write operation, and the description confirms it with 'Requires a personal access token with write scope.' However, the description doesn't disclose what happens on successful creation (returned project ID?), whether projects are immediately active, or whether the domain must be verified. With minimal annotation coverage (no openWorldHint or destructiveHint context), the description carries moderate burden but only covers the auth angle.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted wording. The description is appropriately brief and the key behavioral caveat (write-scope token) is front-loaded with the core action. It earns its place without fluff.

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 creation/mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is underdeveloped. It doesn't state what a successful creation returns, how to reference the new project afterward, why idempotency_key matters, or what domain validation/tracking entails. Among 100+ siblings, the description provides insufficient context for an agent to correctly create a project and use the result.

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 50% — name and domain have descriptions, but tracking_scope and idempotency_key have NO descriptions. The description adds nothing about these undocumented parameters. tracking_scope's enum (city/country) leaves the agent guessing what it filters. idempotency_key is a critical semantic concept (deduplication) that the description doesn't explain at all, and the description doesn't compensate for this gap.

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 states 'Create a project' which identifies the action and resource, but it doesn't specify what creating a project entails or how it differs from similar creation tools among siblings (create_saved_view, create_signal, create_webhook, etc.). The verb+resource is clear but the scope and nature of a 'project' (a core entity with domain tracking) isn't elaborated.

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 on when to use this tool or what prerequisites/context are needed beyond the auth note. The description doesn't mention that this is typically a foundational setup step, when to use tracking_scope, or contrast with update_project/delete_project for lifecycle management. It only mentions the auth requirement, not usage context.

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