create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the mutation ('Create') but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on duplicate names. For a create operation, this is minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence, with no filler. Including the API method name adds useful context without waste.

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's simplicity and high schema coverage, the description is acceptable but minimal. It lacks information about project name uniqueness, validation rules, or the response format, but these are not strictly necessary for a basic create tool. The absence of annotations and output schema leaves some gaps.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for 8 of 9 parameters (89% coverage), including details like 'Short prefix used to generate test case external IDs'. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but with high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool creates a new TestLink test project, using the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'test project', and even includes the API method name 'tl.createTestProject' for disambiguation. This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like create_test_suite and create_test_case.

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 provides clear context: use this to create a new test project. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Given the simple nature of the operation, this is sufficient but not exemplary.

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