create_card_project

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

The annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some burden for side effects and return values. It says only that a project is 'created,' providing no information about returned values, draft vs. finalized state, or other behavioral details. This adds little beyond what the tool name and annotations already imply.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence states the action and resource, and the parenthetical explains the lead variation. There is no wasted wording or redundancy with the schema.

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?

The schema and annotation cover required inputs, optional quantity, and non-destructiveness, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what is returned after creation or how downstream tools like get_card_project or validate_card_project receive the result. Invocation inputs are fully specified, so the gap is moderate but not severe.

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%, with each parameter already documented in the schema: suite_uuid source, lead_variation_uuid size/paper/color, and quantity default 150. The description adds no meaning beyond re-stating the suite/variation relationship, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create'), identifies the resource ('invitation project'), and names the two required inputs (design suite, lead variation). It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like list_card_projects, get_card_project, and swap_card_project_variation by emphasizing 'new'.

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 implies that creation requires an existing design suite and lead variation, and the word 'new' signals it is for creating rather than updating or validating. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like validate_card_project or swap_card_project_variation, nor does it list exclusions.

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