finnhub_project_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the 'create' operation and leaves out any side effects, permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or how name/description parameters affect the operation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The operations list is redundant given the tool's name, but it doesn't add unnecessary verbosity. No wasted words, though it could be more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the role of the optional parameters or any preconditions or side effects. For a create operation, this is insufficient guidance for an agent to invoke it correctly without further assumptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'operation' parameter (value 'create') and says nothing about 'name' or 'description' parameters, which are left to the reader to guess at. This adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create project workspaces for organizing data.' This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes it from siblings like finnhub_project_list, which obviously handles listing rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the purpose clause—if you need to create a project workspace, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, nor any reference to alternatives such as finnhub_project_list for listing existing workspaces.

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