Create a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the auth requirement (project.write grant), which is genuine behavioral context, but omits slug derivation behavior, uniqueness/idempotency handling, and what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences with no padding, but the first is a fragment that omits the action verb, so the text is under-specified rather than genuinely tight. The most important fact (that this creates a project) is not front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should carry more burden for a 5-parameter creation tool; it covers the grant requirement and the value of two fields but leaves name, slug, websiteName, and the response shape unexplained. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage across 5 parameters, the description must compensate, and it partly does by explaining why description and websiteUrl matter downstream (readability in project lists). It says nothing about name, slug, or websiteName, and 'website fields' is vague about which of websiteUrl/websiteName it means.

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 never states a verb — 'A new site inside this workspace' is a noun fragment describing the result, so the create action is only inferable from the tool name and title. It does define the resource (a project is a site scoped to a workspace), which loosely differentiates it from create_workspace, but there is no explicit 'creates a project' statement.

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?

'Requires the project.write grant' is a concrete prerequisite, which is real guidance. However, it says nothing about when to use this versus create_workspace/create_category, nor about duplicate-name/slug conditions or what happens if the caller already has a project with that slug.

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