focus_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 key behaviors: creation happens immediately without confirmation, tag_ids are applied via a follow-up PATCH only when allowed, and the project is still created if tags are forbidden (with a warning). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'create' statement.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential information. No filler or irrelevant content.

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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this creation tool requires richer context. The description covers the immediate-creation behavior and tag edge case, but omits return value, error conditions, and semantics for most optional fields. An agent would need external docs to fully understand the tool.

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 only 46%, leaving 7 of 13 parameters without schema descriptions (color, pinned, private, billable, description, parent_project_id, client_id). The tool description only explicitly elaborates on name, client_id, and tag_ids, providing useful detail only for tag_ids. It fails to compensate for the large number of undocumented parameters.

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 'create a project' with a specific verb and resource, and notes it happens immediately with no confirmation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like focus_update_project and focus_list_projects.

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?

Provides context that creation is immediate and requires a name, and explains the conditional behavior of tag_ids. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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