create_project

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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent); the description adds real value with 'persistent' and the 'evidence ledger' concept plus a scope exclusion. However it omits what an agent needs for a non-idempotent create: whether duplicate names are rejected or produce duplicates, and whether anything is mutated outside the new project.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the scoping caveat second; nothing is padded. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally sound.

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?

With no output schema, the description never says what is returned (a project handle/id) or how the project relates to analysis runs, evidence reads, or export_workspace in this large sibling set. Adequate to call, thin for reasoning about the result.

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 should carry parameter meaning. It mentions the question but never explains what 'name' denotes (project label? identifier?) or how the two relate, leaving one of two required params essentially undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a persistent Android investigation', with two named inputs (question, evidence ledger). The clause 'Does not choose or execute a target' draws a boundary that separates it from execution-oriented siblings like start_trace or create_analysis_run, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 exclusion ('Does not choose or execute a target') implies this is a scoping/organizing step done before targeting work, but no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g. create_analysis_run vs create_project) is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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