create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the creation action and lists some fields, with no information about side effects, authentication requirements, or response format.

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 one sentence of 21 words, efficiently conveying the main purpose and key optional fields. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could be more structured with bullet points.

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 complexity (nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or the details of the items array, and it misses some optional fields like id and number.

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 partially compensates by mentioning name, description, client association, status, and line items. However, it omits the 'id' and 'number' fields and does not detail the nested items structure, leaving some parameters 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 clearly states 'Create a new project in D-Tools SI', which specifies the action and resource. The context of D-Tools SI and the field names differentiate it from sibling tools like create_client or create_service_order.

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 implies usage when a project needs to be created, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like update_project. It provides some guidance by listing required and optional fields but lacks explicit usage context.

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