project_post_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the raw endpoint path and says nothing about required permissions, whether repeated calls create duplicate projects, or what is returned on success.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action verb, with no filler. The endpoint path is somewhat redundant with the annotation title but is cheap and harmless.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a large nested body (role arrays for users, members, viewers, auditors, supervisors, advancedUsers, administrators, plus cost, properties and constraints) and no output schema. The description does not explain role semantics, defaults, or what identifier is returned for the newly created project, leaving a significant gap for a create operation.

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 every parameter (body, apiVersion, validatePrincipals) and every nested field is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a project', plus the underlying endpoint POST /project-service/api/projects. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as iaas_create_project or project_modify_project, so an agent must infer which create path applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (iaas_create_project, project_modify_project). The agent is left to guess based on name alone.

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