cloud_projs_new

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Create a new project' (a write operation) and a prerequisite, but does not disclose return values, error conditions, idempotency, rate limits, or side effects. The note about each client having one 'default' project is a useful constraint but insufficient.

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 structured with a purpose sentence, a prerequisite, then a parameter list. However, the parameter list dominates and could be shortened. Some lines like 'Send extra headers' are redundant with the parameter name. It is adequately concise but not front-loaded enough.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value (e.g., the created project ID or success message), error scenarios, or detailed behavior for each parameter. The tool is a creation operation, and such details are crucial for proper invocation.

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 0%, so the parameter descriptions add value. Each parameter gets a brief comment (e.g., 'Unique project name for a client' for name, 'ID associated with the client' for client_id). However, these are minimal and lack detail on constraints, format, or allowed values (e.g., state has no enum).

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 it creates a new project for a client, using a specific verb and resource. The tool name 'new' aligns with creation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cloud_projs_get or cloud_projs_ls.

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?

It mentions a prerequisite (project management must be enabled) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling names (e.g., cloud_projs_del, cloud_projs_upd) implies that for other operations one would use those, but this is not stated.

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