freshbooks_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the critical two-phase behavior (dry-run vs. actual creation) and explicitly states that a network call is only made when confirm is true. This goes beyond the schema and gives important safety-relevant information. It doesn't mention return format or error handling, but the key behavioral trait is well covered.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and then adds the critical execution caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 9-parameter schema with detailed descriptions, the description only needs to add the non-obvious confirm/dry-run behavior, which it does. It also clearly states the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema exists), but the absence of an output schema is a minor gap; the essential context for using the tool safely and correctly is present.

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 89%, so most parameters are already well documented (rate, project_type, client_id, etc.). The description adds no new parameter-level information; its mention of confirm echoes the schema description. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add value.

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 opens with 'Create a project.' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform other operations (get/list/create for estimates, invoices, clients, etc.). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 essential usage context: it explains that confirm must be true to execute, otherwise it returns a dry-run preview and makes no network call. This tells the agent when to set confirm. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, siblings are obviously for other resources, so the primary use case is clear.

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