redmine_project_create

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions POST, implying a write operation, but omits any details about permissions, side effects, error conditions, or idempotency. The description is too thin to be transparent.

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 very concise with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the action, yet lacks essential information. It is concise but not sufficiently informative to earn a higher score.

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 a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without additional documentation. It lacks information about required fields, formatting, or how the response is structured.

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?

The schema defines a single 'project' object parameter with no property descriptions (coverage 0%). The description does not explain what fields are required or expected, such as name, identifier, or description. The agent has no guidance on how to construct a valid input.

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 action 'Create project' and the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying creation, which is unambiguous. However, it does not elaborate on what a project is or any specifics beyond the basic action.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_project_update or redmine_project_archive. The description only states the action, leaving an agent without context on prerequisites or selection criteria.

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