add-projects

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

Annotations indicate it's a mutating, non-idempotent operation, but the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., return values, potential side effects, whether duplicates are allowed). Since annotations don't provide rich details, the description's minimalism leaves the agent uninformed.

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, straightforward sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and immediately clear, making it highly efficient.

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?

The schema covers all parameters thoroughly, and an output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. However, the description lacks context about batch behavior, workspace handling, or ordering. For a simple creation tool, this is adequate but not complete; the agent would need to rely on schema examples or terse descriptions.

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 has 100% description coverage, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., color enum with defaults, workspace resolution, parentId for sub-projects). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('projects'), making the action unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add-tasks or add-sections, which operate on different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update-projects for modifications, find-projects to query). It doesn't mention prerequisites, scoping, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's existence.

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