setup_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that creation fails if the plan limit is reached, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the name already exists (though unique per tenant implies an error), or any authorization requirements, leaving gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the action, output, and error condition without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly concise.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description sufficiently covers the core aspects. It provides the essential error condition and output, which is adequate for a simple creation tool, though it could mention potential errors like duplicate names.

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 already provides 100% coverage, describing 'name' as 'Project name (unique per tenant).' The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 action (create a new LeadAce project) and the specific resource (project). It also mentions the unique output (auto-generated project id) and a key failure condition (plan limit). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_project and list_projects.

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?

It is evident this tool is for the initial creation of a project, contrasting with management tools like update_project_settings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear since it's the only creation tool among its siblings.

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