create_editorial_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: the initial revision is immutable. However, it does not mention side effects, validation behavior, uniqueness constraints on slug, permissions, or what the response contains, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating tool.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with seven parameters and five required fields. Conciseness here results in missing valuable context rather than efficient communication.

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, missing annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the expected response, how the immutable revision interacts with the revision workflow, or any constraints on the parameters. The single sentence is not enough.

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 only 14%, and the tool description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain required fields like slug, title, content_type, content_format, or content, nor does it mention the optional source_urls and protected_passages. The description makes the schema's job harder rather than easier.

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 specific resource ('Clearon editorial project') and adds a distinguishing detail ('with an immutable initial revision'). It is immediately clear what this tool does and it stands apart from the sibling get, list, revision, and export tools.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions relative to the revision-focused siblings. The agent must infer that this tool is the entry point for creating a project, but there is no context about when one should choose this over propose_revision or apply_revision.

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