create_version

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a rejected validation preview is not an MCP error, so the agent must inspect ready/validation_errors in the result. It omits permission requirements and the duplicate-version risk implied by idempotentHint=false.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The error-handling caveat is worth its space, though the line-broken formatting makes it slightly harder to scan than a single tight clause.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description discloses the result fields that matter (ready, validation_errors) but leaves out permission requirements, what a version conceptually is, and any note on side effects. It is adequate but not complete.

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% with per-parameter descriptions (name length, status/sharing values, confirm semantics, date format), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing parameter-specific; 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?

"Create a version for a project" names a specific verb and resource, and with only create_version/update_version/delete_version/list_versions in the sibling set, the create action is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling tools or saying what a version is in this system.

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?

Nothing states when to use this versus update_version or how to obtain the required project/name values. The confirm/preview note hints at a workflow but is framed as error interpretation, not as when-to-use guidance or prerequisites.

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