create_script_project

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the side effect of creating a Drive project and the required OAuth scope. However, it omits details like project privacy, location, rate limits, or whether the user must be the owner. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: purpose, side effects, parameter usage, and prerequisites. No redundancy or filler.

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 3-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers side effects, prerequisites, optional parameter guidance, and references a follow-up tool. It fully equips the agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that omitting parent_id creates a standalone project, which complements the schema's description. It clarifies the decision point for using the optional 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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair: "Create a new (standalone or container-bound) Apps Script project." It distinctly specifies the resource (Apps Script project) and differentiates from siblings like list_script_projects, update_script_content, and delete_script_project.

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 explains when to use the optional parent_id (bound script) versus omit (standalone), mentions the prerequisite OAuth scope, and directs to update_script_content for adding files. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements but provides adequate contextual guidance.

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