Create a project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the created note's section layout and frontmatter. However, it omits other behavioral traits an agent needs: permissions required, behavior on duplicate titles, side effects, and what the call returns.

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 compact sentences, correctly front-loaded with the action and produced structure before the contextual note about relationships. No filler, though the second sentence is more contextual than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should ideally say what the call returns (note path, id, etc.) and how duplicates are handled; it does not. It is adequate for understanding what will be created but leaves the return and edge-case behavior unspecified.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters including the enum and date pattern. The description only hints at 'status frontmatter' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource ('Create a project note') and specifies the internal structure it produces (Goal/Tasks/Notes/Log sections, status frontmatter), which distinguishes it from the generic create_note sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming create_note as the alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

The second sentence gives context on what projects are ('the unit of ongoing work') and how to relate notes to them via [[wikilinks]], which implies when a project is appropriate. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-create_note or exclusion guidance.

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