Create Project Note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it explains the note's role, it omits critical details like whether existing notes are overwritten, what permissions are required, how links are embedded, or what the return value is. This leaves significant ambiguity for a creation tool, especially given the lack of any safety annotations.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and target location, while the second adds valuable context about the note's role. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level purpose. It does not explain the resulting note's structure, default behaviors, error conditions, or expected response after creation. For such a complex tool, a more detailed description is expected, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds only general context (e.g., links to PRDs and Jira epics, tracks milestones) but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema states. It does not compensate for the few undocumented parameters (e.g., 'name', 'description') but doesn't need to since those are self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource ('project overview and tracking note') and location ('in the Projects/ folder'). It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it acts as the single source of truth for a project, linking to PRDs, Jira epics, meeting notes, and tracking milestones, which separates it from generic create_note or specialized create_prd.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool: when creating a project-level overview and tracking note. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use create_prd for product requirement docs.' Thus, the usage context is clear, but there is no explicit negative guidance.

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