Create a project

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it's a non-destructive, non-idempotent write), the description discloses ownership semantics (caller's account becomes owner), visibility (unpublished, only owner/members can see), and a hard constraint the agent cannot work around ('you cannot publish it'). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior the schema and annotations cannot convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and return values, then layers in the projection rule, visibility constraint, and next step. Slightly dense, but each sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no 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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the returned fields and their use (ui_url for the user), and it covers the unpublished-state caveat and the follow-up call. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for `projection`: it is the CRS every scenario in the project is meshed and run in, and should be the UTM zone covering the site. `name` is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 states a specific verb and resource (create an ANUGA project) and the second names exactly what comes back (id, base_map, ui_url). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_scenario or list_projects.

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 gives strong operational context: pick the UTM zone covering the site, hand the ui_url to the user, and the explicit next step is presign_terrain_upload. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when...' clause or a contrasting alternative, so it falls just short of the top band.

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