Create Project

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 the primary behavior (creation) and that it returns the created project with its assigned ID. However, it does not mention potential side effects, uniqueness constraints, or whether the operation is synchronous, leaving some gaps.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The key information is front-loaded: what the tool does and what it returns. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple create tool with a well-defined schema and clear purpose, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the outcome and return value. The lack of detailed behavioral caveats is a minor gap, but overall the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter information, which is acceptable per the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 new project in the platform' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_projects and get_project which are read operations. The added return value info reinforces purpose.

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 makes the usage context explicit: use this when you need to create a new project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the clear action plus the nature of sibling tools makes the appropriate use case obvious.

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