fow_create_project

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds real depth beyond them: duplicate project_id is rejected before further effects, request_id is inert, an audit event is created, and repository files are neither inspected nor created. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a state-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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the remainder is organized into usable Prerequisites/Effects clauses with zero filler sentences. The trailing 'Exact help' boilerplate and some conceptual jargon slightly dilute an otherwise tight passage, keeping it just short of 5.

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. Given that, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, duplicate-rejection behavior and non-file-system scope — everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; each parameter already has its own description in the schema. The description reinforces project_id uniqueness and request_id inertness, but that duplicates what the schema fields (particularly request_id) already document, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 ('Register a ... local lifecycle project') and immediately scopes it ('lifecycle authority rather than repository scaffolding'), which separates it from repo-file creation and from downstream siblings like fow_register_requirement and fow_goal. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the sequence without opening the schema.

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 says 'Single operation; call directly without an operation argument' and lists prerequisites (pick a unique project_id and human-readable name). It gives clear conditions for use but does not route to a named alternative tool (it only points at fow_capabilities for help), so full when/when-not/alternatives coverage is not reached.

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