create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the creation action and optional Git repo linking, lacking disclosure of behavioral traits such as idempotency, duplicate handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys the core action and key optional feature without 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?

Despite 11 params and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits important context like required authentication, team scoping behavior, and default values. The tool is complex, and the description fails to provide sufficient 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 55%. The description adds value for gitRepository by specifying format, and mentions framework/build settings, but does not elaborate on poorly described params like buildCommand or devCommand. Given moderate coverage, baseline 3 is 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new project.' It specifies optional behavior with Git repo connection and framework/build settings, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_project or delete_project.

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 implies usage for project creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_deployment or create_env_var. No exclusions or context for when-not-to-use are provided.

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