create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a new project is created, states the inheritance behavior for sub-projects, and mentions the return value. It doesn't cover permission requirements or error conditions, but the core behavioral traits of a create operation are adequately disclosed.

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 two sentences with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence packs crucial conditional logic without waste. Every phrase earns its place, maintaining clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers required vs optional parameters, the top-level/sub-project distinction, return value, and references sibling tool list_products for ID lookup. Minor gaps like explicit conflict handling (e.g., setting both product_id and parent_project_id) are implied but not stated, but overall it suffices for an agent to act 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% with each parameter documented, but the description adds cross-parameter logic: product_id is required for top-level, omitted for sub-projects, and inheritance from parent_project_id. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions and clarifies the relationship, adding significant value.

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 'Create a new project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on project creation and provides meaningful detail about top-level vs sub-project semantics, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 tool and how to configure it: top-level projects require product_id, sub-projects inherit from parent and omit product_id. It also references list_products for finding IDs. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like update_project, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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