create_project_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and parameters, without mentioning expected side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if a version already exists. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 leads with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every line provides useful information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 covers the tool's basic function and parameter meanings, but lacks guidance on when to use it versus alternatives and lacks behavioral transparency. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable, but the missing usage and behavior details leave it incomplete.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by listing all five parameters with meaningful additions: 'status' gives allowed values, 'due_date' specifies format, and 'name' provides an example. This adds value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 version (milestone) in a project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_version, delete_version, and list_project_versions.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to create a version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the verb 'Create' and the presence of update/delete siblings make the context unambiguous. No exclusions are given.

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