setup_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-creation side effect for spreadsheet and folder when IDs are omitted. However, it does not mention confirmation behavior (force parameter), effects on existing projects, or error handling, leaving important behavioral 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and only includes the essential conditional detail about auto-creation. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description lacks critical context for a complex tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema. It does not explain return values, the force confirmation flow, create_sheets/create_folders booleans, or what happens if the project already exists. The description is too minimal for the tool's 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all 8 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that spreadsheet_id and root_folder_id are auto-created under the projects_folder_id from config.toml, which clarifies the semantics of these optional parameters beyond the schema.

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 function as 'Set up a new project' and adds a specific behavioral detail about auto-creating resources when IDs are omitted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project or delete_project.

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 for new project creation and explains the conditional auto-creation behavior, giving context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases like updating existing projects or compare with alternatives such as switch_project.

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