QuantConnect

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating non-idempotent creation without destruction. The description adds that creation happens 'in your default organization', which provides useful context about the default behavior when organizationId is not specified. However, it doesn't mention 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a creation tool with annotations covering safety (non-destructive) and idempotency, and an output schema presumably describing the created project, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context like authentication needs, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full usage.

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 full burden but provides no parameter information. It doesn't mention required fields like 'name' and 'language', optional 'organizationId', or the 'model' wrapper structure. The schema fully documents parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate despite the description's lack of parameter details.

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') and resource ('new project'), specifying it happens 'in your default organization'. This distinguishes it from tools like 'create_project_collaborator' or 'create_file', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other project-related tools like 'update_project' or 'delete_project'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing projects), or refer to sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'list_projects' for context.

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