create_project

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral details: the project is created 'pre-populated with workflow lists' and 'requires admin rights on that board,' which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and includes only essential details. No redundant or filler content—every clause adds meaningful context.

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 an output schema and well-documented parameters, the description covers the main points: purpose, behavior, and a critical prerequisite. It could mention return value or side effects, but the output schema likely covers that. This is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptive parameter definitions. The description adds some context by explaining the purpose of lists ('pre-populated with workflow lists') but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 action ('Create a new project'), the target resource ('inside a board'), and the key behavior ('pre-populated with workflow lists'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task and create_list by specifying the 'project (tab)' scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when creating a project tab with pre-populated lists. It also includes a prerequisite ('Requires admin rights on that board'), but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. This is 'clear context, no exclusions,' so a 4 is appropriate.

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