Create a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a create operation. It adds a small contextual detail ('to the workspace') but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as permission requirements, duplicate handling, or response format. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a middle score is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy. This is an example of efficient writing.

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 relative simplicity and the rich schema, the minimal description is acceptable but not complete. It lacks usage guidance, expected return value, and explanation of optional parameters' interplay (e.g., client_id vs client_name). The absence of an output schema increases the need for description detail, so the tool gets a 3 rather than higher.

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 input schema covers 78% of parameters with descriptions, which is reasonably high. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already documents fields like name, color, and workspace_id with helpful details. Therefore, the description does not need to compensate, and a baseline score of 3 is fitting.

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 'Adds a project to the workspace' clearly states the action (adds) and resource (project) and scope (workspace). It is specific enough to distinguish from update/delete, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. It earns a 4 for clarity but lacks the extra differentiating detail seen in top-tier descriptions.

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 like update_project or delete_project. The description does not mention prerequisites, fallback behavior, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent without clear direction.

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