Create a project in the local management database with a name, deal amount in rubles or kopecks, plus optional currency, deadline, priority and notes.
Создать проект. Сумма: deal_amount в рублях («150 000,50») или deal_amount_minor в копейках
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| deal_amount | No | ||
| deal_amount_minor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, defaults for the seven optional fields, side effects, or what happens if both deal_amount and deal_amount_minor are supplied. Only the unit semantics of the two amount fields are disclosed.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the highest-risk ambiguity (amount units). No filler, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline.
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?
An 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions needs far more than a purpose line and one unit note. Six optional parameters and the mutation's side effects are left undefined.
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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only covers two of them. Those two are handled well (rubles with '150 000,50' format example vs. kopecks in deal_amount_minor), but name, notes, status, currency, deadline, and priority remain entirely undocumented.
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 ('Создать проект' – create a project), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling bort_project_update or explain scope relative to bort_project_list/get.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bort_project_update for existing projects. The only guidance is which amount parameter to pick, which is a parameter detail rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.