create_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Requires Enterprise license' but does not mention idempotency, side effects (e.g., duplicate handling), error conditions, or return value. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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 efficient: a clear purpose sentence, a contextual paragraph, a structured Args list, and a requirement note. The contextual paragraph adds value but could be condensed. Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values and error scenarios, but it does not. It includes the enterprise license prerequisite. For a simple creation tool, the coverage is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is critical. It provides meaningful descriptions for all four parameters, including an example for name and clarifying the client as a cost-center identifier. However, it could add constraints (e.g., name length, budget format).

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 clearly states the tool creates a project for cost tracking, using a specific verb ('create') and resource ('project'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like log_project_cost and project_cost_summary by emphasizing the creation aspect and the usage context for manufacturing bureaus.

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 context that projects are used to allocate costs to client engagements, implying use when a new cost-tracking project is needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist, such as log_project_cost for adding costs to existing projects.

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