create_project

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

The description claims idempotency, but the annotation idempotentHint=false contradicts this. Annotations are part of the tool definition and must be consistent; this contradiction undermines transparency.

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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every word earns its place, covering purpose, idempotency, and a key constraint.

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?

Despite clear description, absence of output schema means return structure (beyond 'created' flag) is unspecified. Error handling and other behavioral details are missing, leaving gaps for a create tool with 4 parameters.

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% and already provides adequate parameter info. The description adds only the identifier constraint, which is already in the schema's pattern and description, offering marginal extra meaning.

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 new Huly tracker project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue or create_component.

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 implies when to use via idempotency hint ('returns existing project'), but does not explicitly exclude cases or mention alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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