Create a brand project

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it requires the 'kits:write' scope, it is non-idempotent (implied by 'avoid making a second project'), and it has no client-visible effect on its own. This goes beyond basic semantics and helps the agent understand side effects and prerequisites.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: core definition, workflow sequence, caveat about client visibility, and duplicate-avoidance guidance. No filler or redundancy; information is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool that is one step in a larger workflow, the description includes all necessary context: prerequisites, next steps, scope requirement, and the fact that the creation alone is insufficient. With only two parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description covers the operational context comprehensively.

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 already provides 100% description coverage for both parameters (name and brief). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and resource 'container that holds brand variations and the client share link', which precisely defines the tool's role. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing it as the first of three steps (with add_brand_variation and share_brand_project), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Do this once per client brief'), what to do next ('attach several directions with add_brand_variation and send the client a link with share_brand_project'), and a crucial precondition ('Call list_brand_projects first to avoid making a second project'). This is strong guidance with concrete alternatives and sequence.

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