create_project

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so they convey little beyond 'safe-ish write'. The description adds real behavioral context: policy flags default to off and must mirror user consent, and budgets are cumulative caps on pages and requests. It still doesn't say what the call returns or what happens if a project already exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and constraints packed into the remainder; no filler. Dense but readable, though the semicolon-chained clauses make it slightly harder to scan than a fully structured version.

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?

With no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description does cover the creation semantics and policy/budget meaning, but omits the return value, duplicate-project behavior, and what 'name' and 'question' should contain. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter mutation 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% and there are 4 required params including a nested Policy object, so the description must carry the load. It explains input_root (user-designated input directory), policy (must reflect authorization, all off by default), and touches on the budget fields, but never mentions 'name' or 'question', leaving two required params unexplained.

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 a specific verb+resource ('建立单人研究项目' – create a single-person research project), which is clearly distinct from siblings like update_project_policy or save_research. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, which keeps it out of the 5 range.

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?

It gives two conditional constraints – input_root must be a directory the user explicitly designated, and policy must reflect user authorization with all flags defaulting off – which implies prerequisites. However, it never states when to call this versus update_project_policy or how it relates to the rest of the workflow, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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