create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, return values, permissions, or whether creation is idempotent. For a mutation tool, this is a complete absence of 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not earn its place because it merely repeats the tool name and provides no additional information, so it is more an under-specification than a concise, useful summary.

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?

Given a 5-parameter tool with one required field and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention the required 'name' parameter, the 'status' enum, the relationship fields (area_id, client_id), or any behavior after creation. The description leaves the agent without critical execution context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema—it only restates the action. Since the schema already documents parameters, the description provides no added value.

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 'Create a new project.' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and provides no additional scope or detail to distinguish it from sibling tools like create_client or create_area. It fails to mention required fields or status options, making it a tautology rather than a purpose-clarifying 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_client or create_area. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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