Create Flow project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or response details. The description only states the basic action, leaving the agent without insight into operational implications.

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 extremely short and structurally simple, which is inherently concise. However, it under-specifies and essentially repeats the title, so it does not effectively use its brevity to convey important context. It is not as problematic as a single vague word, but it fails to add value beyond the name.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a Flow project, the significance of required fields, or any expected outcomes, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema.

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 adds no meaning to parameters. The schema covers 75% of parameters, but the description does not clarify the remaining undocumented parameters (apiKey, baseUrl) or explain how the parameter groups (e.g., postPermission, commentPermission) relate to project creation.

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 'Flow 프로젝트를 생성합니다' (Creates a Flow project) is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name and title. It does not add specific scope or distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond the obvious create action, making it tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of situations where a different project-related tool (e.g., list_projects, add_project_participants) would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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