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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the format of the response. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new project') and resource ('for a repository'). There is zero waste or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or response format, nor does it provide usage guidance. For a tool that creates resources in a collaborative environment like GitHub, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 parameters (owner, repo, name, body) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a repository context, which is redundant with the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no value is added.

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 action ('Create a new project') and resource ('for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_card' or 'create_project_column' by focusing on the project itself rather than project components. However, it doesn't specify what kind of project (e.g., GitHub project board) or differentiate from 'list_projects', so it's not fully specific.

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 (e.g., needing repository access), when to choose 'create_project' over 'create_project_column' or 'create_project_card', or any constraints. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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