create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful behavior (returns the generated token) and mentions the admin_token argument, but it does not describe permission requirements, idempotency, side effects, or what happens if admin_token is omitted.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organizes parameter details in a clean Args block. Every sentence adds value and no wasted words are present.

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 low-complexity create operation, the core purpose, return token, and parameter meanings are present, and the output schema reduces the need to describe return shape in detail. However, auth behavior, usage context, and side-effect expectations are under-specified, leaving moderate 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 description coverage is 0%, and the Args section compensates by giving each parameter a brief semantic: name is a display name, description is optional, admin_token is an authentication token. The admin_token explanation is terse, but it still adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific operation and resource: 'Create a new project.' It also adds a key outcome ('Returns the generated token'), which clarifies what the tool accomplishes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_projects, so it lacks overt sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use create_project instead of sibling tools, nor does it state prerequisites such as whether admin_token is required or whether the caller needs existing project context. The only implied usage is the obvious 'when you need a new project.'

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