Create a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds only the return-shape fact ('with its id'), and says nothing about required permissions, duplicate-identifier failures, or what happens to inherited members/modules.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness rather than being a model of tight scoping.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with 44% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers only what the tool does and its return shape. It omits the creation semantics (uniqueness of identifier, visibility default), permission needs, and how the many optional fields affect the created project.

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 44% across 9 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It mentions no parameter at all — not even the required name/identifier or the meaning of parent_id, tracker_ids, inherit_members or enabled_module_names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a project') and notes the return value. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like projects_list, projects_get and projects_update, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or related tools. The agent must infer that this is the write-path counterpart to projects_list/projects_get/projects_update on its own.

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