create_managed_project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing refusal conditions (existing id or folder) and a containment guarantee ('never touches a folder outside that directory'), which the readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints do not convey. It stops short of stating required permissions, side effects on failure, or whether a partially created folder is rolled back.

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?

Front-loads the core action and constraints, then routes to alternatives in a single closing sentence with no filler. Slightly verbose in the middle clause ('To work on an existing folder the operator registers it locally instead'), but every sentence carries information.

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 two-parameter creation tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers action, location, initialization, refusal cases, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so project_id and language are already documented in the schema, including the enum-like language values. The description adds only the uniqueness/reuse constraint on project_id ('refuses an existing id'), matching the baseline for schema-documented parameters.

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 and register a brand-new project') plus where it lands ('a new folder under the operator's configured projects directory') and that it is Git-initialised. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like start_project_request and bootstrap_project without opening either 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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions and names the alternatives: existing folder → register it locally; already-registered project → start_project_request; inspection → bootstrap_project. An agent has a complete routing decision from this text alone.

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