lbm_create_project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description does not add behavioral traits beyond these, such as authorization requirements, uniqueness constraints, or side effects. For a creation tool, more context on behavior (e.g., whether names must be unique) would be helpful, but annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 with three sentences, each on a new line and front-loaded with a clear label ('WHEN TO USE', 'RETURNS', 'NEXT STEP'). Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.

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 (8 parameters, 7 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the high-level purpose and next step but lacks details on parameter constraints, expected input formats, or the structure of the returned object. Additional context would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning; it only mentions the return value. Baseline is 3, and no improvement is provided.

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 tool's purpose: 'To create a new brand monitoring project.' The verb 'create' and the resource 'brand monitoring project' are specific, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools such as lbm_update_project and lbm_list_projects.

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 explicitly states 'WHEN TO USE: To create a new brand monitoring project' and provides a next step ('Call lbm_run_scan to start monitoring'). While it gives clear context, it does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as when to use lbm_update_project instead.

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