create_project

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: omitted optional fields are not sent so OpenProject defaults apply, and the two-phase preview/apply pattern is disclosed. It also explains that a rejected preview returns in `ready`/`validation_errors` rather than the MCP error envelope, which is genuinely non-obvious. It stops short of stating permission requirements or the fact that confirm=true is a real, non-idempotent write.

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?

Four short sentences with no padding, and the result-inspection caveat is placed after the default-behavior note. Slightly back-loaded: the most actionable detail (preview vs apply) could have been front-loaded above the defaults sentence.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent would otherwise get wrong: the confirm gate and where validation failures appear. Missing only permission/authorization notes and what a successful result contains.

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 100%, so per-parameter meaning (including `confirm` and `status`) is already fully documented. The description only adds the general rule that omitted optionals fall back to defaults, which is marginal added value; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a project') which unambiguously distinguishes it from update_project, copy_project and delete_project in the sibling list. However it adds no scoping detail (where the project lands, required identifier constraints) that would sharpen purpose beyond the name itself.

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?

Implies the create flow and explains the confirm/preview protocol, but never says when to use this versus copy_project or when a project should be created at all. No prerequisites (permissions, uniqueness of identifier) are given.

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