create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses name sanitization behavior, team membership requirements with specific 403/404 outcomes, and the 201 response including the returned ID. These non-obvious behaviors go well beyond what a bare 'create' description would provide.

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 compact, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, sanitization rule, parameter details, and return value/workflow. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the return status and ID, explains the optional team parameter and its failure modes, and shows how the result feeds into save_model. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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, and it does. It explains that name is a display name subject to sanitization, and that team_id is optional, must belong to the caller, and yields specific error codes otherwise. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare property titles.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a named project (model folder) to file models into.' It clearly distinguishes this from model-creation siblings by framing the project as a container for models, and the final sentence ties its purpose to save_model.

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?

It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use or alternatives, but it provides clear usage context: create a project as a destination for models, then pass the returned ID to save_model. The team_id constraint and error statuses further guide appropriate invocation.

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