project_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds useful context that the project is 'private' and carries a fixed $10 processing budget, but it omits failure behavior, idempotency semantics, or permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 create tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema documentation, this one-line description is too thin. An agent cannot know what the parameters mean, what the call returns, or how it relates to the surrounding project lifecycle tools.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it explains none of them. Non-obvious parameters such as knownInformation, sourceConstraints, and idempotencyKey get no clarification, and even required address/question are only indirectly implied.

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 and resource ('Create a private property-history project') and adds a scoping detail (the $10 server-processing budget) that clarifies what kind of project results. It is clear on its own but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like project_copy, project_restore, or project_transfer.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many project_* alternatives, nor any prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the entry point for starting a new project rather than duplicating or restoring one.

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