rm_create_project_phase

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is known. The description adds only the parent relationship 'under a project' but does not disclose validation behavior, failure modes, side effects on existing phases, or any additional behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no filler, repetition, or structural waste. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the core action immediately clear.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 4 required, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-sentence description is insufficient on its own. It does not explain required inputs, date constraints, value semantics, or the relationship between a phase and its project, so an agent would need external knowledge to invoke it confidently.

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% and the description mentions no parameter names, formats, or relationships beyond the word 'project.' It does not clarify the four required fields, the meaning of start_date/end_date, or that budget and description are optional.

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 the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'a new phase under a project,' making the operation unambiguous and distinct from sibling create tools like rm_create_project and rm_create_tag. The phrase 'under a project' also signals the parent-child relationship, so an agent can tell this tool apart from other create tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_update_project_phase, rm_delete_project_phase, or rm_list_project_phases. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that should trigger this specific tool.

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