create_project

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

The description indicates the tool creates a new project (mutation) and lists allowed enum values for status and currency. However, it does not disclose error behavior, duplicate handling, or idempotency. Given no annotations, the description provides moderate transparency.

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 concise (two sentences plus a list) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be better structured, e.g., using bullet points for parameters.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value (e.g., project ID), error handling, or side effects. It provides minimal context beyond basic creation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's explanation of status and currency values adds some value, but it ignores the other 6 parameters (description, client_name, location, budget, report_language). Most parameters lack any semantic clarification.

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 clearly states 'Create a new project' and identifies the required parameter 'name'. It differentiates sufficiently from sibling tools like 'update_project' by using the verb 'create', but does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 specifies that only 'name' is required, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., bulk_create_items, update_project) or prerequisites. No when-not-to-use advice is given.

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