Create Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core creation action and the custom-column option, without mentioning persistence, uniqueness constraints, key semantics, permission requirements, or any side effects of creating a project. This is thin for a mutation tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 with no filler. The main action and the notable optional behavior are both conveyed efficiently.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a straightforward creation tool, especially with the schema providing required parameters and the output schema covering return shape. However, with no annotations and no explanation of key semantics or uniqueness behavior, an agent cannot fully anticipate constraints or edge cases before calling the tool.

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 undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the columns parameter ('optional custom column names') and leaves key, name, and description semantically unexplained beyond their labels. In particular, the likely identifier role of key is not addressed, which is a gap for a creation endpoint.

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 ('project') and adds a meaningful differentiator: optional custom column names. This resource noun distinguishes it from sibling tools like kanban_create_ticket, kanban_create_epic, and kanban_create_column even without naming them explicitly.

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 implies when to use the tool (when a new project is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives such as kanban_create_epic or kanban_create_column. The required key and name are visible in the schema, but the description doesn't explain the relationship between them or when this tool should be preferred.

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