create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key behavioral trait that 'identifier' is immutable after creation (後から変更不可), plus defaults for is_public and a caveat that tracker_ids defaults are not 'all trackers'. However it says nothing about required permissions, error behavior, or side effects of creation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a tight Args list with concrete examples. No filler or redundancy; the only minor cost is the two undocumented parameters that break the otherwise consistent list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and most parameters are described. But for a 7-param mutation tool with no annotations, it omits parent_id/description semantics and any mention of permissions or failure modes, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents name, identifier constraints (half-width lowercase/digits/hyphens, immutable), is_public default, enabled_module_names with example values, and tracker_ids behavior. Two params (parent_id, description) remain undocumented in both schema and description, which keeps it below a 5.

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 clear verb+resource ('プロジェクトを新規作成する' = creates a new project), which cleanly separates it from read/update/delete siblings like get_project, update_project, and delete_project. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. required role/permissions to create a project), and no guidance on what happens on duplicate identifiers. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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