create_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source for behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without mentioning permissions needed, what happens if the project name already exists, or any side effects. For a creation tool, more context is required.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is too concise to the point of being insufficient; additional sentences about parameters or usage would improve it without being overly verbose.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not cover return values, parameter details, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with minimal information to use the tool correctly.

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 does not explain any of the 6 parameters, including the required 'name' and 'workspaceSlug'. The agent gets no help understanding what each parameter means or how to use them, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 the action ('Creates') and the resource ('a new project in a workspace'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fork_project or update_project, which also involve projects. The verb+resource is specific but lacks context to distinguish it.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as fork_project for copying a project or update_project for modifying existing ones. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., workspace must exist) or when not to use it.

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