Create Project

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, and open world. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method (POST) and required fields, not addressing side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 sentences, 22 words, no redundancy. Concise and front-loaded with the core call, but could be more informative within the same length.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and a creation operation, the description is inadequate. It omits return values, error handling, uniqueness constraints, and any side effects (openWorldHint suggests external impact).

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions required fields but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for name, github_url, and clickup_url. Optional parameters are not mentioned.

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 tool calls POST /projects to create a project, with the required fields listed. The purpose is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aiproject_create_task, though the resource difference is obvious.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update or delete project tools. It only states required fields, lacking context for appropriate usage.

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