kaiten_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Create a new Kaiten project.' It does not mention permissions, side effects, required authorization, uniqueness constraints, or what happens after creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words, but it is so sparse that it essentially restates the tool name. It is concise structurally but does not add enough content to be genuinely useful.

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 complex nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only names the resource. It does not explain the required title parameter, expected return value, permission requirements, or any behavioral outcomes, leaving an agent under-informed for a create operation.

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 the input schema already documents all five parameters including nested settings and property pairs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('Kaiten project'), so an agent can immediately identify what the tool does. It is more informative than a bare tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_project or get_project.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kaiten_update_project or kaiten_get_project. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided; the only usage cue is implicit in the tool name and the word 'Create'.

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