create_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write-and-local nature is known. The description usefully adds that a dedicated folder is created and that data is hidden, but omits key mutation behavior such as what happens on a name collision, idempotency, or required permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads. The parenthetical '(hidden)' is slightly cryptic but carries real behavioral information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a creation tool with a default-derived path, the description should say something about collision/overwrite behavior or naming constraints — that gap keeps it at minimum-viable.

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%: both 'name' (review topic, 1-80 chars) and 'path' (default ~/med-lit/<name>) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the 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 (Create) and resource (project) and adds structural context — 'one folder per review, holding its wiki and (hidden) its data' — which tells the agent the side effect and layout. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like open_project or list_projects, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 create a new project versus opening an existing one (open_project) or listing them (list_projects). No prerequisites or conditions are given, so the agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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