create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a project but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not explicit), potential side effects (e.g., affecting billing or team access), rate limits, or error handling. The added context about tracking deployments/releases/health metrics is useful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new project in Sentry') and adds supplementary context. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from benefits) for optimal clarity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency for a mutating tool, provides no usage guidelines, and doesn't address output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing annotations and output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like 'organization_slug' and 'team_slug'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have added value by clarifying parameter interactions.

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 action ('Create a new project') and resource ('in Sentry'), with additional context about what the project enables ('Track deployments, releases, and health metrics'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'setup_sentry' by focusing on creation rather than listing or configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'setup_sentry' might overlap in some contexts).

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization/team), compare to sibling tools like 'setup_sentry' (which might handle initial Sentry configuration), or specify scenarios where creation is appropriate versus listing existing projects. Usage is implied only through the action verb 'Create'.

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