create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates a project, but omits key behaviors such as requiring admin privileges, that the identifier cannot be changed after creation (though noted in schema), or any side effects like member inheritance or permissions needed.

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 sentence, very concise, but lacks structure. While it is front-loaded, it is too brief and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name. A slightly longer description with important flags would be more helpful.

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 high complexity (14 parameters) and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the return value (likely the created project object), error conditions, or any constraints beyond what the schema provides. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema parameter descriptions. It does not clarify any parameter constraints or provide usage examples.

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 action and resource ('Creates a new project in Redmine'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like update_project or archive_project, which are also project-related. The verb+resource is specific enough for a basic understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_project or archive_project. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, when creation is appropriate, or what to do if a project already exists.

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