Create Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the required parameters but does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what the response will contain. 'Create' implies mutation, but the description does not elaborate on the behavior beyond that, similar to the update_drive example which scored 2.

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 only two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential domain context and requirements. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fillers.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, and the schema covers parameter details. However, there is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value (e.g., the created project ID), and it does not. It also lacks any mention of permissions or side effects. While not completely inadequate, it leaves gaps given the absence of 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the defaultUrl format and purpose. The description merely restates 'requires a name and a default fallback URL' without adding new semantic meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add value beyond that.

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 and resource: 'Create a new ULink project.' It also explains what a project is ('top-level container for links, domains, and API keys'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_link or update_project. This is a specific and unambiguous 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 gives clear context by explaining that a project is the top-level container, implying it should be created before links, domains, or API keys. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like update_project. It has clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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