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 action ('Create') but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the expected response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with zero wasted words—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool ('Create') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'project' or 'workspace' entails in this system, how to handle errors, or what the tool returns upon success, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters, but the description doesn't provide additional context like examples or usage notes.

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 'Create a new project/workspace' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('project/workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create-prompt' or explain what differentiates a 'project' from a 'workspace' in this context, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'update-project' or 'list-projects', nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints. While the verb 'Create' implies it's for new entities, there's no explicit comparison to siblings or context for usage decisions.

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