cor_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'create'. It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens upon success or failure. The agent lacks sufficient behavioral insight.

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 short (two bilingual sentences plus one about parameters), but the bilingual redundancy wastes space. It is adequately structured, though it could be more concise by dropping one language.

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 complexity (6 parameters, enums, no output schema), the description lacks information about the response format, error handling, or any post-creation behavior. This leaves the agent underinformed for a creation tool.

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 descriptions for all properties. The description adds minimal value by restating that name is required and client/team are optional. It does not clarify the meaning or constraints beyond the schema.

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 tool creates a new project in COR, using a specific verb and resource. The sibling tools include cor_create_task and cor_update_project, so the purpose is distinctly identifiable.

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 mentions requirements (project name, optional client/team) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cor_update_project. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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