create_cospend_project

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent or destructive. The description adds valuable context: the caller becomes ADMIN, the server may modify the provided project_id for uniqueness, and the return payload includes default categories/payment modes. These details go beyond the structured annotations without contradiction.

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 compact and well-structured, with an intro line, an Args block, and a Returns block. Every sentence contributes value, and the key behavior (id uniqueness) is highlighted. It is slightly longer than the absolute minimum but remains efficient.

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?

Given the 0% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what the tool does, how the id resolves, and what the return contains (including reference to get_cospend_project). It does not cover edge cases like error handling, but for a create operation with clear return semantics, this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full weight for parameters. It does: it explains that project_id is a desired slug that may be altered with a digit, and that name is a non-unique display name. This is meaningful semantic information not present in the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new Cospend project') and a clear resource, distinguishing it from siblings like update_cospend_project and delete_cospend_project. It also adds the role implication (caller becomes ADMIN), which further clarifies scope.

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 purpose is evident, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking for existing projects with list_cospend_projects). The context implies use for new projects, but it does not state exclusions or prerequisites, so an agent must infer the appropriate scenario.

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