create_project

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write, so the description's job is lighter. The 'Admin:' prefix adds an auth requirement not covered by annotations, and the slug note hints at the identifier's downstream role, but it says nothing about duplicate-slug handling, side effects, or what is returned.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the most consequential parameter semantics. No filler.

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 mutating admin tool with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage of auth, the description leaves too much open: the 'as_agent' parameter, slug derivation, duplicate behavior, and what the call returns are all unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only explains Slug ('stable identifier used in URLs and CLIs'). DisplayName and Description are self-evident, but 'as_agent' is completely opaque, and nothing says whether slug is generated or required despite zero required params.

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 a specific verb and resource ('create a new project') and adds the 'Admin' scope marker. It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as create_task or create_plan beyond the resource name.

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 'Admin:' prefix implies a permission/role prerequisite, which is the only usage signal given. There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites for slug availability, and no note about what to do if the project already exists.

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