create_project

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description adds the useful 'policy-register' behavior and the environment-gating condition. It does not disclose more detailed side effects, failure behavior, or prerequisites, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately includes the critical environment gate, making it easy to parse.

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 creation tool with 8 parameters and no schema-level parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is insufficient. While an output schema exists and return-value documentation is not needed, the agent still lacks guidance on parameter semantics, defaults meaning, and policy-registration implications.

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 provides no information about any of the 8 parameters, including required 'name' or fields like privacy_visibility, allow_milestones, and date_start. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create and policy-register') with a clear resource ('a project'), and the conditional 'when ODOO_ALLOW_PROJECT_CREATION is enabled' adds precise scoping. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_project and create_task without needing to open the schema.

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 explicitly states the enabling condition for using this tool (ODOO_ALLOW_PROJECT_CREATION being enabled), which gives clear operational context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'create' wording strongly implies this is for new projects rather than updates.

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