create_project

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

Annotations already cover read-only, destructive, and idempotent basics. The description adds valuable nuance: idempotency is scoped to the same daemon lifetime within 24 hours, and restart/expiry invalidates the guarantee. This goes beyond the annotations, though auth and failure modes are not discussed.

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 tight sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second front-loads the important idempotency caveat. No filler; every sentence adds 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?

It covers the core action and the most important idempotency caveat, but with no output schema it does not tell the agent what to expect on success, such as a project ID or whether creation is asynchronous. The meanings of name, description, and agent_context are also left to inference.

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 25% (idempotency_key), and the description elaborates only on that parameter's retry semantics. The other three parameters (name, description, agent_context) receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Create') and resource ('project'), and adds the visibility outcome ('visible in Open Science'). No sibling tool creates a project, so the boundary 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?

The opening sentence establishes when to use the tool: to create a new project. The retry caveat also tells the agent to inspect existing projects after restart or expiry rather than blindly retrying, which is useful context, though no specific sibling tool is named.

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