supportpages_create_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'no repository connection needed' precondition and never explains permissions required, whether the project is created remotely, or what side effects accompany a destructive-hinted create; 'local generation' mildly muddies the openWorld signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though the semicolon clause is the only content beyond the bare action.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-required-parameter creation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves parameter meaning, subdomain rules, and permission prerequisites entirely unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two required parameters, and it names neither 'name' nor 'subdomain'. The parameter names are self-explanatory English and the schema carries patterns/length constraints, but the description adds no meaning whatsoever about them.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a SupportPages.io project', and the qualifier 'for local generation' separates it from hosted-setup siblings like setup_hosted. The clause 'no repository connection is needed' implicitly contrasts with connect_repository, though no sibling is ever named directly.

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?

'for local generation' and 'no repository connection is needed' imply when this tool fits (local-first workflows that skip repo binding), which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative (e.g., setup_hosted, connect_repository) to route the agent.

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