keyso_post_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the creation action and the HTTP method/path, without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, validation behavior, or response semantics. This is essentially no behavioral transparency beyond the obvious fact that it creates a resource.

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 very concise: three short lines covering purpose, method, path, and an example URL. There is no wasted text, and the essential endpoint information is front-loaded. However, it is arguably too sparse for a creation tool with an unstructured body.

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 absence of annotations, an output schema, and any body properties in the input schema, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what fields to include in the request body, what the response will look like, or what authentication/error behavior to expect, so it cannot reliably invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the three top-level parameters (body, token, base_url), which provides the baseline score. However, the description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the body parameter is only described as 'JSON body' with no properties, leaving the actual payload structure undocumented.

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 states the core action 'Создание проекта' (creating a project) and gives the POST /projects endpoint, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like keyso_get_projects and keyso_post_projects_delete. It is not a tautology because it names the resource and the creation intent, though it lacks any detail about what a project is or requires.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The only implied usage is 'when you need to create a project', which is visible from the purpose itself but not explicitly stated as guidance.

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