Create Script Project

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this creates a new project rather than modifying an existing one, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose details such as whether the project is created in Drive, what happens if a project with the same title exists, or whether any additional resources are implicitly created. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the key verb and noun. It is appropriately concise for a simple creation tool, though it could have used the brief format to add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic action but lacks context about the project lifecycle, the role of parent_id, and the need for prior Google authentication. The sibling list hints at a script-project management workflow, but the description does not explicitly connect this tool to that workflow. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent to discover important surrounding context elsewhere.

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 schema already documents all parameters, including title, parent_id, and user_google_email. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters or their relationships. This is the expected baseline case where the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new Apps Script project.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_script_projects, get_script_project, update_script_content, and delete_script_project by focusing on creation. It does not state the broader context of what an Apps Script project is, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use create_script_project instead of create_drive_file or update_script_content. The description does not mention prerequisites like prior authentication or the relationship to other script-management tools. Agents are left to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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