Create project

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds practical behavior: default status, automatic project numbering, the manual-numbering exception, no external visibility, no confirmation prompt, and that the result matches get_project. It does not reconcile the openWorldHint=true annotation, but the added context is substantial.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose before adding defaults, numbering behavior, safety context, and return shape. The first sentence is slightly fragmentary, but overall every sentence carries useful information.

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?

For a 13-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: required customer source, default stage, numbering behavior, no external side effects, and return shape. The main remaining gap is detailed semantics for the address and date parameters, but the schema provides field names and formats.

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 coverage is only 23%, so the description must compensate, and it does add meaning for key fields: customer_id comes from the Directory, number has automatic default behavior, and status defaults to pending. It still leaves many of the 13 parameters such as address fields, dates, and description without added semantic guidance beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it creates a new project for a customer, and it names the main data categories (number, type, stage, address, dates). It is distinct enough from siblings like update_project, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related creation tools such as create_lead or create_opportunity.

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?

It gives useful creation context: the customer must come from the Directory, the project is created in the specified stage with pending as default, and manual-numbering accounts must supply a number. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this rather than update_project, list_projects, or other create tools.

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