sprrint_projects_create

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful constraints about key and visibility, but it does not explain side effects, validation failures, default behavior when key is omitted, or what happens after creation. A create operation with no annotation coverage needs more behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the constraint details are placed immediately after. Every sentence 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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to fully support correct invocation. It omits guidance about the required name parameter, possible default_view values, and expected response or errors. The agent can partially infer behavior but lacks important details for a reliable call.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for key and visibility, but it does not explain the required name parameter, description, or default_view options. It also conflicts with the schema by suggesting key must be exactly 2 characters while the schema allows null. Coverage is therefore incomplete.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a project.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, get, update, archive, restore, or delete projects. The additional key/visibility constraints also make the operation concrete without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool should be used when creating a project, especially alongside other create tools like tasks_create and categories_create. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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