Create new project

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly states 'If project with the same name already exists, existing project will be replaced.' Replacing an existing project is a destructive side effect, directly contradicting the annotation. This is an Annotation Contradiction and makes the behavioral disclosure unreliable.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by compact, relevant details about URL resolution and replacement behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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 description covers the main input modes and replacement behavior, but it omits some context an agent might need: there is no output schema, so response/return values are unexplained; the 'environment' parameter format is not elaborated; and the contradiction about destructive behavior weakens overall completeness. It is minimally viable but has 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for the 'content' parameter: it explains GitHub repository URL resolution, the requirement that other URLs return docker-compose.yaml contents, and that raw YAML is accepted. Other parameters are not expanded further, but the content details justify a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deploy new project from docker-compose.yaml contents or download contents from URL.' It clearly distinguishes this creation/deployment tool from siblings like VPS_updateProjectV1, VPS_deleteProjectV1, and VPS_getProjectListV1, and even clarifies replacement behavior for existing projects.

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 gives clear operational context: use this tool to deploy a new project from raw compose content or a URL. It details acceptable URL forms and the replacement behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to VPS_updateProjectV1 for modifying an existing project.

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