uselink_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses important behaviors (workspace inference, slug derivation) but omits details like permissions, success/error responses, or any side effects. It adds some value but leaves gaps 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?

Two concise sentences communicate purpose and key nuances without wasting words. Front-loaded with the main action, then clarifying details.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains the creation behavior and edge cases around workspace and slug. It lacks a mention of the return value or error conditions but remains mostly complete for its complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description says slug is derived from name, which is already in the schema. It adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Create a new project' with a specific verb and resource, and details workspace/slug behavior. It distinguishes from sibling project tools like list_projects or update_project by focusing on creation.

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?

The description provides clear context on workspace inference (PAT-scoped vs personal) and slug auto-generation, helping the agent understand when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so no when-not-use guidance.

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