Projects Create Project Phase

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on required permissions, whether creating a phase mutates the parent project's schedule, or idempotency behavior. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero added context warrants a 2.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is undersized for a 6-parameter mutation tool; brevity here reflects omission rather than discipline.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety are partly covered, but a 6-param create tool with 0% schema coverage needs parameter and prerequisite detail the description never supplies. It is inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% across 6 parameters (4 required), and the description compensates for none of it — it never mentions project_id, name, start_date, end_date, budget, or description. Only the phrase 'under a project' faintly implies the project linkage.

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 (Create) and resource (a new phase under a project), which separates it from the update/get/delete/phase siblings by operation. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. project must exist), and no mention of alternatives such as projects_update_project_phase or projects_create_project. The agent must infer context entirely.

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