whodb_platform_project_create

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: default mode returns a confirmation token rather than performing the write immediately, and whodb_platform_confirm must not be called until the user approves. That two-step flow is the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct load: what it creates, how to target an org, and the confirmation-token safety flow. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers creation semantics, org targeting, the confirm handoff, and workspace override, leaving only minor gaps such as required permissions or failure behavior for a mutation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description clears that bar by supplying the decision rule for 'org' (pass it when the selected organization is not the intended target) and by framing 'workspace' as per-call targeting that does not change defaults, which gives the nested object a purpose beyond its field docs.

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 hosted WhoDB project in an organization'), which places it clearly against siblings like project_delete, project_rename, and project_access. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the generic whodb_platform_create sibling, nor explain the distinction between 'project' here and other create-family 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?

Gives real conditional guidance: pass org only when the selected organization is not the intended target, and use workspace for per-call targeting without mutating defaults. It also encodes the approve-before-confirm rule tied to whodb_platform_confirm. It stops short of naming when NOT to call it (e.g. use whodb_platform_projects to list, or whodb_platform_create for other resource kinds).

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