create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a mutating operation, what side effects occur, whether the project is associated with a profile, or any constraints on creating projects. The description merely restates the creation action without behavioral context.

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 short sentence, which is efficient. However, it's underspecified for a tool with 13 nested properties and 2 top-level parameters. The description could earn its length by adding more context about the project creation semantics rather than just restating the action.

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 complex create operation with a nested data object containing 13 fields, no output schema, and no annotations. The description gives no indication of what a successful creation returns, whether there are required dependencies (e.g., profile_id), or any validation constraints beyond what the schema states. For a CUD operation with this complexity, more contextual explanation is needed.

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 50%, meaning many nested parameters (url, role, tags, type, lessons, metadata, outcomes, confidence, importance, period_end, description, period_start, technologies) have their own descriptions within the schema. However, the profile_id parameter description is notably detailed (explaining account-scoped vs profile-scoped key behavior). The data payload params are well-described in the schema itself, though the top-level description doesn't add semantic depth beyond 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 'プロジェクトを新規作成' (Create a new project) uses a clear verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from siblings like get_project, list_projects, update_project, delete_project. However, it doesn't specify what a 'project' contains or what makes this distinct from other create_* tools beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling create_* tools (create_profile, create_skill, create_goal, etc.), and the description gives no indication of when a 'project' is the appropriate entity versus other types, nor any prerequisites or context for creating a project.

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