createProject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the side effect of setting the new project as the current project context, which goes beyond the schema. However, it doesn't discuss other relevant behaviors such as permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens on failure, so it's partially transparent.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that states the action and a key side effect. It contains no fluff and earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain the meaning of required/optional parameters, expected return values, or any operational constraints. It covers the basic purpose and one side effect but leaves major gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 must compensate for explaining the parameters. It does not: the phrase 'specified configuration' is vague and provides no meaning for name, team_id, template, author_ids, or report_template_properties_id. The tool fails to add any parameter-level clarity beyond what the bare schema types offer.

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 clearly states the primary action ('Create') and the specific resource ('Dradis project'), and it adds a distinct side effect ('automatically set it as the current project context'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like setProject (which likely only sets context) and getProjectDetails (read-only).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where a sibling like setProject would be more appropriate. The only implicit guidance is that you use it to create a new project, but no explicit comparisons.

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