Create Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the bare action without any side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. For example, it does not mention that creating a project may automatically switch to it (implied by the default switchTo parameter) or that keys must be unique. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and object immediately, making it scannable and efficient. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having an output schema and a 4-parameter input schema, the description is extremely minimal. It does not explain important contextual behaviors such as the unique key constraint, the impact of switching projects, or what the tool returns upon success. For a creation tool that may have side effects on the current project state, this level of incompleteness leaves the agent underinformed.

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%, with each parameter (name, key, switchTo, description) already documented in the JSON Schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric: the schema carries the semantic weight, and the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 'Create a new Panel Todo Pro project' uses a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('project'), and identifies the application context ('Panel Todo Pro'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from its siblings like panelTodo_createSprint or panelTodo_createTag, which target different entity types.

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 this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, situations where creation is appropriate, or exclusions. While sibling tools like panelTodo_listProjects and panelTodo_switchProject imply complementary actions, the description offers no explicit comparison or usage context.

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