teamleader_projects_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action and required field but does not disclose return values, side effects (e.g., project created with what defaults), permissions, or error behavior. The description adds no transparency beyond what the schema already provides, leaving a significant gap for a create operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose and the key constraint. It contains no filler and earns its place. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for a simple create operation with well-documented 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 create tool with a non-trivial schema (including a nested 'extra' object) and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'nextgen' means, what the tool returns (e.g., project ID), or how the 'extra' field behaves. The agent would need to infer these from the schema alone, which is insufficient for complete context in a tool with no annotations.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description's note 'Enkel title is verplicht' reinforces the schema's required field but adds no new meaning. The 'extra' catch-all field is only described in the schema as 'Any other documented projects-v2/projects.create field,' which is useful but not expanded upon. Since the schema fully covers parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Maak een nieuw nextgen-project' (Create a new nextgen project). The verb 'Maak' and the resource 'nextgen-project' explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list, update, or delete operations. Even without knowing what 'nextgen' means, the intent is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for project creation specifically vs other creation tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. The only hint is 'Enkel title is verplicht' which is more about parameter requirements than usage context. This is insufficient for guiding an agent on tool selection.

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