taskhub_project_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the orgId condition already present in the schema and says 'Create'; it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, duplicate behavior, or return value. For a mutating create tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the personal/org distinction is stated immediately and actionably.

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 low-complexity create tool with fully described schema parameters, the description covers the main call path. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return value and post-create effects unspecified, and parentId-based sub-project creation is only present in the schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's orgId sentence paraphrases the schema's existing parameter description and adds no new meaning beyond it. The parentId sub-project capability is left entirely to the 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Create a new project') and clarifies the personal-vs-organization scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like taskhub_org_create or taskhub_subproject_add, but the tool's core purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit conditional guidance: include organizationId for an org project, omit it for a personal project. This is clear context, though it does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to similar sibling tools.

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