新建项目

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely valuable behavioral trait — the server automatically creates six phases P0–P5 — which an agent would otherwise not know and which affects downstream phase.* calls. However, it says nothing about permissions, duplicate-name handling, validation failures, or what the response returns (no output schema exists).

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?

A single compact sentence with the side effect placed immediately, no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that the efficiency borders on under-specification for a 6-parameter mutation tool.

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 write operation with zero annotations, six parameters (four undescribed), and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks required-field semantics beyond name, side-effect details beyond phase creation, and any expectation of the returned result.

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 only 33% (only status and dueDate are documented), so the description is expected to compensate and does not — it mentions no parameters at all. Undocumented fields like budget, color, and description leave the agent guessing about format and constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('新增项目' / create a project), matching the tool name, and adds the notable side effect that the server auto-creates six phases P0–P5. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like project.update or purchase.create, but the create semantics are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (project.update, project.get) or on prerequisites such as whether the caller must first create phases, categories, or a budget. Usage is only implied by the verb '新增'.

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