create_project_full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a DB record, CLAUDE.md, and links Claude Desktop, and mentions automatic linking of Claude Desktop config. This provides good behavioral insight, though it could note safety aspects like idempotency or error handling.

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 short paragraphs: purpose, context, parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key action, no redundant sentences, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 there is an output schema (not shown but noted as present), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers all six parameters sufficiently, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., folder existence) or error scenarios. Overall, it is complete for a creation tool with this complexity.

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%, so the description must add value. It provides a bullet list with explanations for each parameter, including behavior like auto-detection of description when scan_type is not 'none'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare JSON types and defaults.

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 'Create a project with full Metis integration: DB record, CLAUDE.md, Claude Desktop.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_project' by emphasizing the full integration aspect.

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 says 'This is the unified project creation tool used by all installers and the dashboard.' This gives context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or use alternatives like 'create_project'. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusions.

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