createProject

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait beyond the obvious creation: the newly created project becomes active. It does not mention failure behavior, what happens to the previously active project, return values, or any prerequisites, which would be needed for full transparency.

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 entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place: the action, the resource, and the active-project side effect. There is no fluff or redundant 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?

This is a simple tool with a single parameter, an input schema, and no output schema. The description covers the core operation and activation side effect, but it omits return-value behavior, duplicate-name handling, and interaction with switchProject/listProjects. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description could be slightly more complete for an agent to predict the result of a call.

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% and the description never touches on the 'name' parameter beyond implying it is the project name. The schema already exposes the parameter and its regex pattern, so the description adds no new semantic meaning for the single parameter. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate but does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new build project.' It goes on to state a key side effect, 'and make it active,' which clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like listProjects, switchProject, and deleteProject. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it differs from the project-related alternatives.

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 gives clear usage context: use createProject when you need a new build project. It implicitly distinguishes from switchProject by emphasizing creation and activation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest bar.

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