create_project

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the operation is scoped to the authenticated user and returns a new project_id. However, it omits the `config` parameter's role, does not discuss duplicate-name behavior, and provides no side-effect or error information beyond the act of creation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the essential purpose. The intro is followed by workflow context, return value, and a concise Args list. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or excessive length.

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 6-parameter create tool with no output schema and no safety annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow, return value, and most parameters. However, the undocumented `config` parameter is a notable gap, and there is no mention of error conditions or idempotency, making the description only partially 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It provides meaningful explanations for name, domain, keywords, competitors, and industry, including accepted formats for keywords and competitors. It fails to mention the `config` parameter present in the schema, leaving one of six parameters undefined.

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?

Clearly states 'Create a new Unilytics project for the authenticated user,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects by describing project creation as the entry point for adding tracked keywords and uploading files.

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?

Provides clear contextual usage: 'Use this to set up a project from Claude — then add tracked keywords/prompts and upload files to it.' This indicates when the tool should be used in a workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for viewing or managing projects.

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