Crear proyecto local

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses side effects (defaults apply while active, first project auto-activates, sharing between Claude Code and Desktop), but omits details like duplicate-name handling, whether it changes the currently active project, or what the tool returns.

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?

Three concise sentences in Spanish, each providing necessary information: what it creates, how defaults work, and activation/sharing behavior. No redundant content.

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 covers core behavior but lacks return-value information and duplicate/overwrite semantics. Given the absence of output schema and annotations, a create operation would benefit from stating what is returned or that existing names are rejected, so the completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 covers 50% of parameters; the description adds meaning by explaining that the OpenProject project, work package, and activity IDs become defaults for logged hours while the project is active. Individual IDs are named clearly, and the 'default' semantics are not obvious from the schema alone.

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?

Clearly states it creates a local project (workspace) for grouping hours, which distinguishes it from project_list, project_use, and project_delete. It also explains the secondary purpose of setting default values for time logging.

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?

Provides clear context: use to create local projects and define defaults that apply while active, with automatic activation only for the first project. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to project_use for selecting an existing project, but the context is sufficient.

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