Create Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose authentication/permission requirements, what the created project returns, defaults applied to omitted fields like workflow_id, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by required inputs and the helper-tool pointer. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers the essentials for calling the tool, but omits workflow_id entirely and gives no indication of the return payload or error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves real gaps even if the schema covers parameter names.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, and the description largely restates the required ones. It adds the dependency hint that company IDs come from productive_list_companies, but does not clarify workflow_id or the meaning of project_type_id 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a new project in Productive.io") and is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read/update tools (productive_get_project, productive_update_project, productive_list_projects). An agent can identify the operation immediately.

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?

Specifies the required inputs (name, project_type_id) and the optional company association, and explicitly routes the agent to productive_list_companies for company ID lookup. It gives clear usage context but no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative creation paths.

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