rh11_projects_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the reactivation behavior and the 201 status code, as well as validation constraints (ASIN validity, keyword length). However, it does not mention what happens if a non-archived project with the same ASIN+keyword+region exists, nor does it describe side effects beyond 'create' (which is obvious from the name). This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 three sentences long, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence covers an important edge case, and the third provides validation constraints. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain behavior and outcomes. It explains the 201 status for reactivation but does not describe what a successful new creation returns (e.g., project ID or 200 status). It also omits error cases for duplicate non-archived projects. Given the moderate complexity and the presence of 20 sibling tools, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the uniqueness key (ASIN+keyword+region) and clarifying that ASIN must be a valid Amazon ASIN, which goes beyond the schema's example. It also reinforces the keyword length constraint, providing semantic linkage between parameters.

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 'Create a new Rhodium11 Amazon project,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rh11_projects_list, rh11_projects_update, and rh11_projects_archive. It also adds a precise behavioral nuance (reactivation of archived projects) that further clarifies its purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when creating a new project. It also explains the special case where an archived project with the same ASIN+keyword+region is reactivated, which implicitly guides the user on behavior for existing records. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for selection among siblings.

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