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 discloses useful traits such as identifier immutability and the conservative private default, but it omits permission requirements, duplication behavior, and other side effects of project creation.

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 concise one-line summary followed by a compact Args list. Every parameter earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 output schema exists and the description covers all parameters with behavioral notes, the tool is mostly complete. It lacks explicit usage guidance against update_project, but that is a guidelines issue; the creation behavior is well specified.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: name as display name, identifier format and immutability, parent_project_id for subprojects, and is_public visibility plus default context. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain 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 opens with 'Create a project,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_project_version or create_project_category. The arg list reinforces the operation is about project creation.

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 instead of update_project or archive_project. The parent_project_id note implies subproject use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative exclusion.

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