ticktick_create_project

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive or idempotent. The description mentions organizational features (folders, view modes) which provide some context about project capabilities, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens on duplicate project names.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences. The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds relevant context about project organization. There's no wasted verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by front-loading more critical information.

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 that this is a creation tool with no destructive hint and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that creates a primary entity in a task management system, more context about project capabilities, constraints, or relationships to other entities would be helpful. The description covers basic purpose but leaves many contextual questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters but provides no parameter information whatsoever. The schema itself has excellent parameter descriptions (name, color format, folder_id purpose, view_mode options), so the baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting despite the description adding zero value.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new project/list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ticktick_create_folder' or 'ticktick_create_task', which also create different types of entities in the same system.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of other creation tools, or any contextual constraints. The second sentence describes project capabilities but doesn't inform usage decisions.

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