create_project

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent; the description adds the concrete behavioral promise that a new project resource is created and that the response contains id and editor URL. No contradiction with the annotations, and no destructive behavior is hidden.

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 short sentences convey purpose, scope, and output with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 one-parameter creation tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential information: what is created, the required input, and the key return values. It could add a note about side effects or prerequisites, but the annotation set and simple shape make this largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% because the single name parameter is described in the input schema. The tool description does not need to add much, and it does not; it simply refers to the project name, consistent with the schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('new blank Overleaf project') and explicitly notes the return values. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like duplicate_project because of the 'blank' qualifier.

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 primary use case (creating a fresh project) but gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over duplicate_project or whether any prerequisites apply. It does not state when not to use it.

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