create_project

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

The description does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with the create action). It adds one useful behavioral detail: the requirement WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose return values, failure modes, or side effects beyond the act of creation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds a crucial prerequisite, making every word count.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It identifies the target table and a configuration prerequisite, but it omits what the tool returns (e.g., the created project record) and does not address possible error conditions. This is a minor gap for an agent invoking the tool.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the context that these parameters belong to the pm_project table, but it does not elaborate on how to structure the nested 'fields' object or the allowed values. The schema carries most of the parameter semantics.

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 'Create a PPM project (pm_project)' with a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical 'pm_project' identifies the underlying table. This naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project or list_projects.

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 implies the tool is for creating new PPM projects, but it does not explicitly contrast with update_project or list_projects, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it. The only explicit requirement is WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is more of a precondition than usage guidance.

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