create_project

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

The description only states it creates a project, implying a write operation, but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior under duplicate names. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose critical behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from being front-loaded with more structure, such as listing key parameters or behavior.

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 of 8 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too brief. It does not mention return values, required fields, or provide enough context for correct invocation. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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 0%, and the description only hints at 'repo and workspace metadata' without explaining the 8 parameters individually. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions, and fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 tool creates a project with repo and workspace metadata. The verb 'create' and resource 'project' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects or resolve_project by indicating the inclusion of metadata.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where other tools (e.g., create_session) might be more appropriate, or when not to use it.

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