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. It discloses that a workflow can have at most one plan and that the tool returns a plan ID for use with add_phase. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or failure modes, which would be valuable for a mutation 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the most critical information (what it does and what it does not do). Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy.

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 appropriately mentions the returned plan ID. It covers the key constraint (at most one plan) and provides an alias. For a creation tool with 5 parameters (one required), the description is reasonably complete, though it could mention error conditions or side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the return value (plan ID) and the relationship to add_phase, but it does not elaborate on each parameter further.

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 explicitly states the tool creates a phase plan for a workflow, clarifies it does NOT create a context library, and uses specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_plan' (alias) and 'add_phase'.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create a phase plan) and mentions an alternative tool ('add_phase') to add phases to the plan. It also notes the alias 'create_plan'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to other creation tools like 'create' or 'new_project'.

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