create_project_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, rate limits, or what the response contains. 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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function, though the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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 mutation tool with 3 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does at a high level but provides none of the contextual information needed for effective use: no parameter explanations, no behavioral context, no usage guidance, and no indication of what the tool returns. The agent would need to guess about many aspects of tool behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it provides no parameter information whatsoever. The three required parameters (projectId, name, layout) are completely undocumented in the description, and the layout enum values (board, table, timeline, roadmap) aren't mentioned or explained. The description adds zero value beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 view') and target resource ('for a GitHub project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' or 'update_project_view' by specifying it's about views rather than projects themselves or updates to existing views. However, it doesn't specify what a 'view' entails in GitHub projects context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), differentiate from similar tools like 'create_project' or 'update_project_view', or indicate when this operation is appropriate versus other view-related operations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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