Create ICC Plus project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning this is not a read-only operation, and the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the project is created in-memory and nothing is written until save is called. This goes beyond what annotations provide and sets accurate expectations about side effects and persistence.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential operation and a key constraint (in-memory, nothing written until save). Every word earns its place with no fluff 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?

For a tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers the core concept but leaves some gaps: it does not specify what the tool returns, whether the new project becomes the active project, or how overrides should be structured. The presence of sibling tools like read_project and save_project partially compensates, but the missing return/state-change details make it minimally adequate.

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 only 50%: the path parameter has a description, but the overrides object is undocumented in the schema and the description does not explain it. The phrase 'from current upstream defaults' hints that overrides may adjust those defaults, but this is implicit and not sufficient for an agent to confidently construct valid override values.

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 ('Create') and resource ('in-memory project from current upstream defaults'), making the operation clear. It also distinguishes itself from save_project by explicitly noting that nothing is written until save is called, and from open_project by implying this creates a new project rather than opening an existing one.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool—when starting a new project from default upstream values—and hints that a subsequent save_project call is required to persist it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like open_project or save_project, but the context provides adequate guidance for an agent to choose correctly.

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