createProject

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the generic fact that a project is created, but omits important details such as whether the operation is idempotent, whether workspacePath must be pre-existing, what side effects occur (e.g., directory creation), or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose. However, it is slightly under-specified, which prevents a perfect score—it could have included a brief note on usage or outcome without becoming verbose.

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?

Although the schema fully covers the parameters, the tool is a create operation with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., whether workspacePath must be valid). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior, making it incomplete for an AI agent to invoke with confidence.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already specifies—it merely says 'with metadata' without elaborating on the parameters. The schema itself is clear enough, so the tool description does not need to compensate.

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 'Create a new project with metadata' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like updateProject, deleteProject, and listProjects. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the creation counterpart to updateProject, nor does it offer any context about prerequisites (e.g., workspacePath must exist) or situations where a different tool might be more appropriate.

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