create_audit_project

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag it as a non-read-only, non-destructive write), the description discloses where files are stored (SEO_AUDIT_DATA_DIR or platform user-data dir), an environment prerequisite (optional browser dependency plus installed Chromium for rendered modes), and server-side caps. It does not state what happens when a project_id already exists, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Five short sentences with no filler, and the purpose statement is front-loaded before the constraint details. The constraints are listed as a somewhat flat sequence rather than grouped by parameter, which slightly hurts scanning.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, this is close to complete: limits, storage location, ID format and browser prerequisites are all covered. The gaps are the two undocumented parameters (start_url, include_sitemaps) and duplicate-ID behavior.

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 description must carry the burden, and it documents four of six parameters: project_id format rules, retention range and default, max_pages range with the server-config cap, and render_mode's dependency. It leaves the required start_url and include_sitemaps completely unexplained, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (create a local project) and adds scope qualifiers (robots-aware settings, scheduling disabled) that separate it from run_project_audit, list_audit_projects and set_audit_schedule. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is only implied: 'scheduling disabled' hints that scheduling is a separate concern handled by set_audit_schedule, and 'create a project' implies this is the prerequisite step before run_project_audit. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus the other project tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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