project_create

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the automatic Phase side effect and the validation rules (unrelated directories and ancestors of the home directory are rejected). It does not state permission requirements, whether creation is reversible, or how failures surface, leaving a modest gap for a mutating 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 core action and its side effect are front-loaded in the first sentence, with workflow context following. The three-sentence block is slightly verbose but each sentence carries routing or constraint information, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the create action, its side effect, and the directory validity constraints. It is complete enough to call correctly, though permissions/reversibility remain unstated for a mutating tool with no annotations.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented there, including the root_path CWD constraint, so the description adds little beyond reinforcing the 'must be the current session's working directory' rule. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new project') and immediately names a non-obvious side effect (a default Phase is created automatically). It also routes to the sibling dismiss_project_registration, so an agent can tell it apart from the other project_* tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly describes the triggering workflow: the OS never auto-registers a directory, the session-start briefing asks the user, and this tool is called when the user agrees while dismiss_project_registration is called when they decline. That is an unambiguous when-to-use/when-to-use-the-alternative mapping rather than an implied one.

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