create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool, implying a write operation, but doesn't address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., duplicate names), or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new project') and includes essential details without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is being created and with what attributes.

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's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns upon success, error handling, or behavioral nuances like uniqueness constraints. For a creation tool, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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%, with both parameters ('name' and 'agent_instructions_template') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning these parameters but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states (e.g., elaborating on what 'agent_instructions_template' entails). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Create a new project') and specifies the key attributes involved ('with a name and optional agent instructions template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'get_project', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_project' for modifying existing projects or 'list_projects' for viewing projects. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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