n8n_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It captures the license constraint but omits mutation semantics (idempotency, what happens on duplicate names), side effects, or return value structure. The agent cannot determine if this is destructive or what fields the created project will have.

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 appropriately brief at two sentences. However, the '[UNIFIED]' and '[Enterprise]' prefix tags appear to be metadata leakage that clutters the front-loaded information without adding semantic value for the agent.

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-creation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It captures the licensing context but fails to describe the return value (project ID? object?) or document the two required parameters, forcing the agent to invoke the tool with incomplete information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for both 'site' and 'name' parameters. It fails to do so. While 'name' is semantically clear, 'site' is ambiguous (URL? ID? instance name?), leaving the agent guessing at the required input format.

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 core action ('Create a new project') with specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly say 'n8n project' in the description text, the '[Enterprise]' tag and tool name prefix provide sufficient context to distinguish it from sibling project tools like openpanel_create_project.

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 a critical prerequisite ('Requires n8n Enterprise/Pro license'), establishing when the tool is applicable. However, it lacks guidance on when NOT to use it (e.g., vs n8n_update_project) or failure modes (e.g., if project name exists).

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