Create project

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint, so the description does the heavy lifting and delivers real behavioral detail: duplicate handles are rejected with 409, private projects get an API-generated access token returned in the response, and an API key is required. It does not describe the response shape for non-private projects or rate limits, keeping it below 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then layering constraint, side effect, and precondition. Each sentence carries information, with only mild redundancy between the description's handle note and the schema's identical wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the error case (409), the conditional side effect (access token), and the auth requirement. It is close to complete, missing only what the success response contains for non-private projects and whether the new project is returned at all.

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%, so the schema already documents name, handle, and isPrivate fully. The description restates the uniqueness of handle and the private-token consequence of isPrivate, reinforcing rather than adding new semantics, which matches the baseline 3.

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 ("Create a support project") that clearly separates it from list_projects, get_project, update_project, and delete_project by verb alone. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops 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?

Usage is implied: the uniqueness/409 rule signals this is only for genuinely new projects, and the API-key note sets a precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of update_project as the alternative for existing projects, and no exclusions.

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