graph.project.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (create) but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it validate slugs? Does it create dependencies?), permissions, idempotency, or what happens if a project with the same slug exists. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the creation purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly expanded without breaking conciseness. It earns its place.

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 the high complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, state-altering tool with no annotations), the description is far from complete. It does not cover what the output/return value is, error conditions, or required relationships. The one sentence leaves the agent with significant ambiguity when deciding to invoke this 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% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. However, the description does not describe any parameter semantics, just the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is not justified; since schema coverage is very low and description adds nothing, a score of 3 (marginal value) is the most lenient given the guidelines. The description provides zero detail about required fields like 'slug' or 'name', optional 'tags', 'status', 'aliases', or 'description'.

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 ('cria') and resource ('novo projeto no catálogo do grafo'), clearly indicating creation of a graph catalog project. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like 'graph.project.update' (update) or 'graph.category.create' (category creation), though the action is unique enough.

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 such as 'graph.project.update', 'graph.category.create', or others. There is no information about prerequisites, required context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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