Create a project

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the project is attached to a client and that the rate is in dollars, but says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, required client existence, or failure modes beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scoping fact ('under a client') comes first. It is efficient, though quite terse for a creation tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation profile. However, for a 4-parameter creation tool with sibling alternatives, the description omits any prerequisite or duplicate-handling context, leaving it only minimally 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 100%, so all four parameters (name, client, billable, hourly_rate) are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description echoes 'hourly rate in dollars' and 'billable' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('a project') and scopes it to a parent ('under a client'), which separates it from siblings like update_project, archive_project, and create_client. It is clear what the tool creates, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from the other project-mutating siblings beyond the verb.

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 statement of when to use this versus update_project or create_client, and no prerequisites such as whether the referenced client must already exist. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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