create_project

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits: no mention that the tool is polymorphic via the required 'resourcetype' parameter, nor any side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The description is dangerously incomplete for a creation 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?

At three words, the description is technically concise but severely under-specified. It fails to earn its place by providing any useful information beyond the tool name. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested 'data' object, polymorphic behavior via resourcetype, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. The agent lacks crucial context about what a project is, how the polymorphic type selection works, and what the output looks like.

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% - each parameter has a description explaining its role. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, but baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already serves this purpose adequately.

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 'Create a project' is a near-tautology of the tool name. It states the verb and resource but provides no specificity or differentiation from sibling tools like create_board or create_document. A tool named create_project should at least indicate what constitutes a 'project' in this system.

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 on when to use this tool versus other creation tools (e.g., create_board, create_document). No context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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