paperclip_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a create/mutation operation, but does not disclose side effects such as whether duplicate names are allowed, whether authorization is required, or what the response contains. This is acceptable but minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, the object, and the purpose in a compact form.

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 a simple two-parameter create tool, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out what the successful result is likely to be (e.g., a project object or ID) and any constraints. The absence of those details is a moderate gap.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'name' and 'description'. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond noting the project's purpose, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('project') and states its organizing purpose ('organize issues and goals'). This distinguishes it from sibling create tools like paperclip_create_issue, paperclip_create_goal, and paperclip_create_agent.

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 description implies the tool is for creating top-level containers for issues and goals, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. No direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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