create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses write access, that directories and a placeholder file are created (side effects beyond a pure record insert), and what the response contains. It stops short of stating what happens on a duplicate project_id or whether an existing scope/file is overwritten, which is the main residual risk 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?

Front-loaded, two compact sentences with concrete detail and zero filler. The trailing 'Returns:' line is mild redundancy given an output schema exists, but it is short enough not to hurt.

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?

For a resource-creating tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, access level, and return shape. The remaining gap is conflict/idempotency behavior on repeat calls, which an agent would benefit from knowing since no annotations cover it.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the 'project-<id>' derivation and the parent_scope hierarchy idea, which the schema already documents, so it adds little semantic value beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Create a new project scope and its knowledge base directories') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced ('project-<id>' scope, knowledge-base/projects/, lessons/projects/, placeholder rules .md). No sibling tool creates a project scope, so an agent can distinguish this from create_pending_proposal or generate_project_skills without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this bootstraps a new project's scope and directories, but never states when to call it rather than generate_project_skills or create_pending_proposal, nor any precondition (e.g., that parent_scope must already exist). Adequate minimum-viable context, no explicit routing or exclusions.

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