create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the call also creates a database, schema, and API key beyond the obvious project record, and that it is restricted to admin/super_admin – useful non-obvious context. However, it says nothing about reversibility, side-effect cleanup, failure modes, or whether the API key is returned in the response.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and lists side-effects in parentheses followed by the authorization note. There is no filler, though the parenthetical bundle could be clearer about what each item means.

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 multi-resource creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and access restriction but omits return values and key behavioral details an agent would want. 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?

'nome' is the sole parameter and its schema description ('Nome do projeto') covers it at 100%. The description adds no syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Criar' (Create) and resource 'novo projeto IAdev', and names the atomic side-effects it bundles: 'banco + schema + API key'. That is more precise than a generic create and distinguishes it from siblings like provision_project or publish_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?

It states an authorization precondition ('Admin ou super_admin'), but gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. There is no telling whether an agent should call create_project versus provision_project, or whether this is the first step in a sequence. Usage is only implied.

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