add_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic creation action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether creation requires specific permissions, what happens on duplicate titles, if the project appears in specific views (e.g., Today/Upcoming), or error conditions. The description is minimal beyond the core function.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter list is organized but could be more concise (e.g., merging 'area_id' and 'area_title' explanations). Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' section is somewhat verbose.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a creation tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps remain in usage guidelines and transparency (e.g., no mention of default behaviors or error handling).

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. It provides a clear list of all 8 parameters with brief explanations of each (e.g., 'Title of the project', 'ID of area to add to'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it lacks format details (e.g., date formats for 'when'/'deadline', whether 'area_id' and 'area_title' are mutually exclusive).

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 specific action ('Create a new project') and resource ('in Things'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_project' which modifies existing projects or 'get_projects' which retrieves them. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether an area must exist first), when to use 'add_todo' instead for single tasks, or how it differs from 'update_project' for modifying existing projects. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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