upservice_create_project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the creation behavior is implied. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions needed, side effects, or rate limits).

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 well-structured as a docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is concise but the parameter listing is redundant given the schema. The Returns section adds value by specifying the output format.

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 creation tool, the description covers the action, parameters, and return type. It lacks usage guidelines but is otherwise complete given the presence of an output schema (though not shown). The complexity is low, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 description lists parameters with types and brief descriptions, repeating much of the schema's own parameter descriptions. However, the extra_fields parameter gets a slightly clearer explanation ('Extra raw JSON fields to merge into the body') compared to the schema's description. Schema coverage is 0% in the description but the schema has its own descriptions, so baseline is 3.

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 'Create a new project in Upservice,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like upservice_update_project and upservice_delete_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as upservice_complete_project or upservice_update_project. No prerequisites or context for usage are mentioned.

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