create_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the prerequisite WRITE_ENABLED=true and identifies the target table (pm_project), providing some extra behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens on creation (e.g., return value, side effects) beyond what annotations suggest.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds the critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 has 5 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, required fields beyond the schema, or how to use the fields parameter. However, the schema covers parameters, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency, making it adequate but not 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 parameters are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional insight into parameter meanings, formats, or relationships, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action (Create), the resource (SPM project), and the internal table (pm_project). This distinguishes it from generic create_record and from update_project/list_projects by conveying that it is specifically for creating a project entity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus create_record or other create tools. The only usage condition is the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite, which is a configuration gate rather than guidance about selecting between alternatives.

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