cor_create_project

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a new project' with no details on side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what exactly is created. The output schema exists but is not described.

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?

Description is brief but lacks structure: no clear separation of purpose, usage, and return value. The 'Args:' section is helpful but the overall format could be more organized (e.g., bullet points for params).

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 the single parameter with nested object, the description should explain what the created project contains and what the tool returns. It fails to mention return value or expected behavior, making it incomplete for a creation tool.

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 has data as an object with additionalProperties true (0% coverage). Description lists some expected fields (name, clientId, etc.) but ends with 'etc.', adding partial meaning without completeness. A more exhaustive list or link to documentation would improve this.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'a new project', distinguishing it from siblings like cor_update_project and cor_create_client.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., using templates, updating existing projects) or prerequisites (e.g., client existence). With many siblings, this omission limits correct tool selection.

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