create_project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is not destructive but is a write operation. The description adds critical context: the tool requires admin rights, and it creates default workflow lists, making the project immediately usable. However, it does not mention any potential side effects (e.g., board visibility changes, notification triggers), but given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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 sentences in the description, zero filler. The first sentence states purpose and benefit; the second sentence provides precise usage guidance with sibling reference. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters (all documented), a helpful output schema (not shown but present), has annotations covering safety, and the description adds the missing usage context (admin rights, sibling differentiation). For a creation tool of moderate complexity, this is fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior for the 'lists' parameter ('Defaults to To Do / In Progress / Review / Done') and by hinting at the conventional typing logic ('a 'done'-style name becomes a closed list'), which is not in the schema. For 'project_type', it clarifies that only 'project' projects are scanned for tasks, a useful behavioral note.

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 verb ('Create'), resource ('new project (tab) inside a board'), and key benefit ('pre-populated with workflow lists so it is immediately usable'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'copy_project_structure' by contrasting the intended use case.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite ('Requires admin rights on that board') and gives a clear when-not-to-use scenario: if the goal is to reproduce an existing project's layout, use 'copy_project_structure' instead, with reasoning about list type fidelity.

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