create_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the on-disk layout detail (wiki plus hidden data folder); it does not warn that repeated calls create duplicates (non-idempotent) or what happens if the target path already exists.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical '(hidden)' is slightly awkward but carries real information about the data folder.

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 and full annotation coverage, the description need only convey purpose and side-effect shape, which it does. The remaining gap is usage routing, which is scored separately.

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%, including the default path (~/med-lit/<name>) and a name example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond the schema, but nothing is required of it either.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a project') with an added structural gloss that one project equals one folder per review holding a wiki and hidden data. It differentiates somewhat from list_projects/open_project by virtue of being the creation verb, but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to call this versus open_project, list_projects, or project_settings, and no prerequisites (e.g. must the project not already exist). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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