create_project

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the access prerequisite on the connection, the default-workspace fallback, and that the project is immediately usable. It stops short of error/duplicate-name behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and parent resource, and each clause carries distinct information (default handling, permission constraint, readiness). Tight and waste-free, though not maximally compact.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main agent concerns: parent scoping, default behavior, and the permission prerequisite. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (e.g., duplicate or reserved names), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 67% and both described parameters (project, workspace) already carry their own semantics in the schema. The description's note that you pass `workspace` and omit it for the default largely restates the schema text, adding little beyond it; `name` remains undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a project') and scopes it to a workspace, which separates it from create_workspace and create_status_page. It does not explicitly name a sibling it supersedes or is confused with, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('Only works where this connection has access to all projects of that workspace') and explains the default-workspace case, which is useful when-to-use context. However, it names no alternative tool or exclusion for when not to use this, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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