Metis — Create Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a DB record and makes the project available for linking and memory search, but does not mention error handling (e.g., duplicate titles), permissions, or side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, a usage context sentence, an effect sentence, and a clear 'Args' list. No unnecessary words, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior (record creation, UI appearance, linking capability). No major gaps.

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 compensates fully by explaining each parameter: title (human-readable name with example), description (one sentence), domain (with examples), and source (with allowed values). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('register a new project'), the resource (Metis platform), and the effect (creates DB record, appears in Work tab). It distinguishes from siblings like create_project_full by implying this is the standard project creation tool.

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 a clear scenario for when to call the tool ('when a researcher confirms they want a Claude conversation or project tracked permanently'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like create_project_full, but the context is clear enough.

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