Create a project

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: 'Build kicks off immediately', implying the operation is not instant and has side effects. No contradictions 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 three short, front-loaded sentences. No waste; every sentence provides critical information: what it does, the action it triggers, and recommended follow-ups.

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 moderate complexity (6 params, 1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior (project creation, immediate build) and next steps. It omits details on return value, but the sibling tool project_status suggests the project can be polled. Slight gap for new users on output, but acceptable.

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%, so some parameters (e.g., prompt, subdomain, botType) have descriptions, but name and teamId are documented only by name. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention that the project is created from a 'natural-language prompt' which aligns with the prompt parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new FloopFloop project', and specifies the input is a 'natural-language prompt'. This differentiates it from siblings like refined_project (which refines) and project_status (which checks status), establishing a distinct purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it ('Create a new FloopFloop project from a natural-language prompt') and suggests follow-up tools: 'Call wait_for_live to block until the site is up, or poll project_status.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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