Create or Update Crowd Project

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

Annotations indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain whether the configuration is merged or replaced, or what happens to existing settings.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No redundant information. Efficient for a simple tool.

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?

No output schema, and description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status, project ID). The 'body' parameter's expected structure is not elaborated. For a write operation with a complex input, more completeness is needed.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (collId as 'Collection ID', body as 'Crowd project data'). However, the 'body' is an open object with no further structure hints, which the description could have addressed. Baseline 3 due to full 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 or update) and the resource (crowd project configuration for a collection). It distinguishes from sibling read tools like transkribus_crowd_get_project, but does not differentiate between create and update scenarios.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs update, or when to use other crowd tools). No mention of prerequisites or context.

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