Create Project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'adds a new project,' implying a create operation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing projects?), error conditions, or permissions. Significant gaps remain.

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 short but includes an unnecessary and inaccurate first sentence ('Requires a project ID') that wastes space and misleads. The second sentence is concise but the overall structure is not efficient due to the misleading statement.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters with many enums and no output schema, yet the description fails to explain return values, side effects, or constraints like grouping (site_group_id). Given the complexity, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but adds no value.

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 'Add a new project to the user account,' which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. However, the first sentence 'Project Tool: Requires a project ID' is confusing and potentially misleading because the input schema does not require a project ID. This detracts from clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like PROJECT_updateProject or PROJECT_listProjects. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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