m3_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It earns credit for the non-obvious behavioral trait 'Async import queue,' which signals that creation is not synchronous and results may not be immediately visible. However, it stops short of explaining the consequences: what the response contains, how failures surface, or how to confirm the project was actually created.

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 sentences with zero filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the behavioral note. Every word earns its place; the description is appropriately sized for a three-parameter create tool.

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 is low-complexity (3 flat params, no enums, no output schema), but the async behavior creates a real completeness gap: without an output schema or annotations, the agent doesn't know what the call returns, how long the queue takes, or how to verify success. The description is adequate for initiating the call but not sufficient for a confident end-to-end interaction.

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 100%, so the schema already documents code ('Project code'), name ('Project name'), and definitionShortcut ('XML transfer shortcut' with a default). The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a project') and adds domain context with the Czech term '(zakázka)'. Among the many m3_create_* siblings, the resource is unambiguous, and the name itself reinforces the distinction. It doesn't explicitly contrast with m3_projects (likely a listing tool), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of m3_projects for verifying creation, no conditions stated, and no exclusion criteria. The 'Async import queue' hint implies a follow-up is needed, but the description never tells the agent what to do next.

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