create_card_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond them with the concrete consequence that a project cannot be deleted afterward, which is exactly the kind of irreversible-effect detail an agent needs before committing. It stops short of saying whether creation consumes an order or what is returned.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the caveat. The irreversibility note is placed second, where it functions as a decision gate rather than burying the purpose.

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 three-parameter creation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key irreversible side effect. The remaining gap is that it never says what the caller gets back (project UUID?) or whether 'quantity to order' implies a real purchase, which an agent would want before firing a destructive create.

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%, so all three parameters (suite_uuid, lead_variation_uuid, quantity with default 150) are already fully documented, including the origin of the UUIDs. The description only gestures at the same concepts, adding no format or value detail beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 a new invitation project') plus the two inputs it is built from ('a design suite and a lead variation'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_card_project, list_card_projects, validate_card_project, and swap_card_project_variation, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the shape of the operation, and the irreversibility warning gives real decision-relevant context. However, it names no alternative tool and no prerequisite conditions (e.g. that suite_uuid must come from search_card_catalog or get_card_suite), so the agent has to infer when this is the right call.

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