create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses defaults (Waterfall when ProjectMethodTypeId is omitted, account default status), side effects (Kanban gets default board columns), and a permission-dependent consequence (the caller becomes project manager when their license allows). It does not describe the return payload or failure behavior (e.g., what happens on a non-unique name), which is the remaining gap for an unannotated 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with required fields, then the methodology mapping, then the creation constraint and its workaround. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 10-parameter, unannotated, output-schema-less create tool, the description covers defaults, permission side effects, and the status constraint well. It leaves the agent guessing about the response (does it return the new project ID?) and any creation failure modes, which matters when there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that ProjectMethodTypeId=2 creates Kanban with default board columns and that status parameters are inert at creation. These are consequences of parameter choice, not restatements of the field docs.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new project') and immediately names the required fields. It also names the sibling used for the one thing this tool cannot do ('change it with update_project'), so the agent can separate creation from mutation without opening schemas.

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 gives clear preconditions (Name and TypeId required), the entity to look up for TypeId, and an explicit boundary: StatusId/ProjectStatusId cannot be set here, use update_project instead. It stops short of stating when not to create (e.g., duplicate-name handling) or pointing at search_projects as a pre-check, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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