Base Wework Create Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a mutating create operation, but it does not mention required permissions, side effects, idempotency, whether existing data could be affected, or what the response contains.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. However, for a tool with 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, it is so sparse that it functions more as an under-specified stub than a well-scoped definition.

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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage), the description is far too incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, required input meaning, distinction between project and team, authentication needs, and behavior beyond 'create'. An agent would not be able to invoke this tool confidently from the provided text.

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%, and the description provides no parameter semantics. With 13 parameters, including ambiguous ones like teams, owners, followers, metatype, and access_token, the agent receives no help understanding what any of them mean or how they should be populated.

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 a creation action ('Tạo mới') on a specific resource ('dự án hoặc team làm việc trên Base Wework'), making it easy to identify as a create-project/create-team operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like base_wework_create_department, but the project/team focus is sufficiently concrete.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of related tools such as base_wework_edit_project or base_wework_create_department. The phrase 'cho dev team' hints at intended users but does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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