create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does state the core side effect (creates a project) and the parent-child variant, which lets the agent know this is an additive operation. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, error conditions, whether the parent project must exist, or what the tool returns.

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. The main action is front-loaded, and the sub-project guidance follows immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse the essential behavior quickly.

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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation, especially since the parameter names and schema cover title/description/required details. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of errors, prerequisites, or return behavior, an agent is left without full context for edge cases.

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 compensate. It adds real meaning to parent_project_id by explaining that passing it creates a sub-project. The title and description parameters are self-explanatory from their names, and title is already marked required in the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('a project'), and it adds a specific variant: passing parent_project_id creates a sub-project. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling creation tools like create_task, but the resource name is enough to establish the core purpose.

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 only usage guidance is the conditional for sub-projects: 'Pass parent_project_id to create it as a sub-project.' There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool over related tools such as create_task, bulk_create_tasks, or list_projects, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parent id.

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