VPS_createNewProjectV1

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the tool can accept raw YAML content or a URL (with automatic GitHub resolution) and will replace an existing project with the same name. This is important destructive behavior. It could add details about what 'replaced' entails, but the current disclosure is sufficient.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences plus a clarification about GitHub URLs. It front-loads the primary action and avoids unnecessary details. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers input semantics and replacement behavior. It could mention typical return values or confirmation, but given the context, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand the operation's scope.

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?

The schema describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds significant value by explaining the 'content' parameter in detail: it can be raw YAML, a URL to docker-compose.yaml, or a GitHub repository URL with auto-resolution. This goes beyond the schema description. The other parameters are not enhanced, but the overall addition is meaningful.

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: deploying a new project from docker-compose.yaml content or URL. It uses specific verbs (Deploy) and resources (new project), and distinguishes from sibling tools like VPS_updateProjectV1 and VPS_deleteProjectV1 by focusing on initial deployment from compose files.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (for deploying from docker-compose) and explains URL handling for GitHub repositories. However, it does not explicitly compare with the sibling VPS_updateProjectV1 tool for updating existing projects, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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