timeiq_project_create

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the creation action and client linkage but omits important details like side effects, permission requirements, whether it returns the created project, and the effect of fields like dry_run, budget_type, etc.

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 short sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it inadequately informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the purpose of optional fields, return values, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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. It only mentions 'linked to a client' but does not explain any of the 7 parameters, including required fields (name, client_id) or the meaning of budget_type, is_billable, etc. This adds no value beyond the schema's type names.

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 creates a new project and specifies it is linked to a client, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update, archive, or delete.

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 (e.g., timeiq_project_update, timeiq_project_archive). It does not mention prerequisites such as the existence of a client_id, nor does it state when not to use the tool.

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