chatgpt_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a project and then verifies URL/projectId/title, which is useful. However, it does not mention prerequisites, failure behavior, idempotence, or whether creation is irreversible.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the main action first, then the verification behavior, and every part earns its place.

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 mutation tool with undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It leaves unclear what each parameter means, what the returned verification data looks like, and how failures or duplicate creations are handled.

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 does not compensate. 'name', 'operationId', and 'instructions' are not explained at all; only the project name can be guessed from context. The meanings of operationId and instructions are completely opaque.

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 action and resource: 'Tạo ChatGPT Project mới' (create new ChatGPT Project), and adds the post-creation verification of URL/projectId/title. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like chatgpt_list_projects or chatgpt_select_project.

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 usage context is implied: use this when a new ChatGPT Project needs to be created. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternative tools among the many project/chat siblings.

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