create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new project' with no details on side effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or what happens on duplicate titles. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks critical information that could be added without unnecessary verbosity. True conciseness balances brevity with informativeness; here it is too brief.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the effect of the optional parameters, the return value, or any behavioral nuances. The agent would be guessing about how to use debug or what project_type values are accepted.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The 'project_type' parameter has a default but no explanation of valid values (e.g., 'project', 'area'). 'debug' is unexplained. The schema provides no help, and the description does not compensate.

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 'Create a new project' and the system 'Amazing Marvin'. It is specific about the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_project_with_tasks', which likely creates a project with initial tasks, so the purpose is not fully distinguished.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_project_with_tasks' or 'create_task'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and sibling list.

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