create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses ownership ('you own'), the return value (project ID), and intended usage of that value. It does not detail error scenarios or side effects, but the core behavior is well conveyed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids repetition and directly addresses usage.

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 create operation, the description covers the essential context: creation, ownership, return value, and relationships to other tools. It also provides reuse guidance, making it complete despite the lack of an output schema.

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% for both parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 action: 'Create a Harmonica project (workspace) you own.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'you own' and explaining the project's role in publishing and session scoping.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Reuse an existing project by passing its ID to those tools instead of creating a new one.' It also explains when to use the returned project ID for publish_sensemaking_topic or scoping sessions.

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