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 write semantics are covered structurally. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the required permission scope and the fact that the call returns a pid and slug. It doesn't cover rate limits or failure modes, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and scope before the prerequisite and return value. Every sentence carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return values (pid and slug), and it discloses the auth scope needed for a write operation. It lacks any note on slug uniqueness conflicts or idempotency, which a create tool could usefully mention, but overall an agent has enough to call it 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 100%, so all four parameters (name, slug, domainPid, description) are already documented with constraints and cross-references (air_list_domains). The description adds only the generic phrase "in a domain", so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Create a project in a domain") that clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like air_list_projects and air_get_project. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with them, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives a prerequisite ("Requires domains:write (fullPipeline preset)") which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about when to use this tool versus siblings such as air_create_account or the assessment-creation tools. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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