add-projects

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, already conveying that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'new' projects, batch creation) but does not disclose side effects, conflict behavior, or defaults such as workspace handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exactly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or extra content. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the verb 'Add'.

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 rich schema and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but somewhat thin. It does not mention key behavioral details such as the requirement for at least one project (minItems: 1) or how workspaces are handled (personal project default), relying entirely on the schema for those semantics. It is sufficiently complete for a straightforward creation task.

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 input schema already provides high coverage (100%) with descriptions for the 'projects' array and every nested property including color, parentId, workspace, and viewStyle. The description 'one or more new projects' loosely restates the array parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Add one or more new projects' uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('projects'), and clarifies that multiple projects can be created at once. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find-projects or update-projects.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like add-sections or update-projects, nor does it state conditions or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description.

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