taiga_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It usefully discloses that ownership is fixed to the connected account (no owner parameter exists) and that the response includes id and slug, but it says nothing about permissions required, privacy defaults, failure modes, or whether creation is reversible.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then the ownership constraint and return values. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers purpose and returns, but leaves the agent guessing about permissions, privacy behavior, and the semantics of two of three parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (just is_private's default). The description does not explain what 'name' means, whether it must be unique, or what 'description' controls, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Taiga project') and adds a scope qualifier (owned by the connected account), which distinguishes it from list/get project siblings by implication. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 name and description imply when to use it (to create a project), but there is no guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or which sibling to choose if a project already exists. The parenthetical ownership note is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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