Create a naming project

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the created board is durable, persists kanban/research/ledger across sessions, returns an id, and requires naming:write scope while spending no AI credits. This goes well beyond the structured schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage guardrail, persistence semantics, prerequisite call, parameter guidance, and side effects. It is front-loaded with the core action and returns an id immediately.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers creation, reuse, parameter relevance, auth scope, cost behavior, and persistence. It also discloses the return value (id), compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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 three parameters. The description adds extra meaning by emphasizing that the description field should contain the real brief because generation quality depends on it, and by clarifying the default TLDs indirectly. This adds value 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create one durable, project-owned naming board and return its id.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_naming_projects and generate_names by focusing on the creation of a persistent project entity.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: call list_naming_projects first, reuse existing boards, create only once per real naming brief, and write the full brief into the description field. It also states when not to use it ('never once per generation run') and mentions the required naming:write scope.

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