create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the created directory layout and the sync-upload semantics, which is useful, but says nothing about overwrite/idempotency behavior if the project already exists, permissions, or that project.json contents are generated rather than supplied.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, followed by a context clause. Every sentence earns its place; no padding or redundancy.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the folder-structure sentence is genuinely informative. But for a creation tool with zero annotations and completely undocumented parameters, the definition leaves key invocation and side-effect questions unanswered.

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 0% for both parameters (prompt, project_name), so the description must compensate and does not: neither parameter is mentioned, nor are defaults, format, or meaning. An agent cannot tell what project_name should be or how prompt is used.

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 (create) and resource (project folder) and enumerates the artifacts produced: sync/, drafts/, prompts/, project.json. This lets an agent distinguish it from read/list siblings, though it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named prepare_directory_project.

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?

"Use for repo-managed projects" gives a positive usage condition, and "only sync/ files are intended to upload" clarifies intent. However, no alternative is named (prepare_directory_project, create_project_script) and there is no when-not guidance, leaving routing to inference.

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