Create project

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 usefully discloses that sibling tools implicitly register projects from cwd, which is real behavioral context. However, it says nothing about duplicate-name behavior, idempotency, or whether re-registering an existing project errors or upserts — the key unknown for a create/register mutation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value fact (that other tools usually make this unnecessary) is front-loaded right after the purpose. Nothing repeats the schema.

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 6-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the schema is well documented but the description omits the one thing structured fields cannot supply: what happens when the name/slug already exists and whether this is safe to call repeatedly. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 100% and the descriptions are rich (repo_url as project identity across machines, summary guidance, slug defaulting from name), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds 'by name,' which confirms name as the key. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Register a project by name') and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_context and create_task, which auto-register a project from cwd. An agent can tell what this does and why it might be redundant without opening the schema.

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?

Names the two alternatives and gives a clear when-not condition ('Usually unnecessary'), which is unusually strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating the case where this tool IS the right choice (e.g. registering a repo not reachable from the current cwd), so it is not fully explicit.

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