Create a new ground (project)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It covers slug format/uniqueness, authenticated ownership, and write-token requirement—valuable context beyond the bare 'creates'. However, it omits success/error behavior and default visibility, leaving some room for improvement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides essential information (creation, slug constraints, ownership, auth). No redundant or filler content.

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 plus schema adequately cover purpose, required parameters, constraints, and auth for a creation tool. Missing details like success/error responses and default visibility are not critical given no output schema and the schema's default declaration. Slightly lower due to not explicitly connecting 'ground' to 'project' in the description itself.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds only the uniqueness constraint for slug, which is not in the schema. For name, visibility, and description, the schema provides sufficient semantics, keeping this at baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Creates a new ground') and identifies the resource. The title further clarifies 'ground (project)', distinguishing this from sibling create_* tools like create_bug or create_node. The verb is specific and the resource type is explicit.

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 implies this tool is used to create a new ground, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives. It provides prerequisites like unique slug and write-scope token, which are useful conditions but not direct alternatives or exclusions. No explicit guidance on scenarios favoring this tool.

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