Create project

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond that: it documents the error contract (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and the return shape (wrapper plus Project model), which the agent cannot infer from annotations. It omits permission/scope requirements and that non-idempotent creation can yield duplicates on retry.

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 Args/Returns/Raises structure is front-loaded with the purpose and each line earns its place with concrete field meaning. It is appropriately sized for a 7-parameter mutation, with only slight redundancy in restating the tool name in the title line.

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 mutation tool with seven parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: each parameter's meaning, the mutual requirement of name/path, the failure modes, and the return wrapper. It falls short only on auth/permission prerequisites and on explicitly identifying params_json as the arbitrary-field channel.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so for nearly every field: name, path, namespace_id, visibility, description, initialize_with_readme, plus the escape hatch for arbitrary POST /projects fields. The one gap is that the actual schema key `params_json` is never named, so an agent must infer that "**kwargs" maps to it.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create a new project") that unambiguously separates it from gitlab_edit_project, gitlab_get_project, and the many other project-scoped siblings. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead for related operations, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_edit_project, gitlab_ingest_projects, or the generic api_request/gitlab_api_request. The only conditional logic given ("required unless path is given") is a parameter constraint, not a usage guideline.

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