Create Project

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

Annotations already convey readOnly=false and idempotent=false, so the description doesn't need to state that it mutates. The added constraint 'under an owned active Area' provides useful context beyond annotations, but the description doesn't disclose what happens if the Area is not owned/active, the return value, or other behavioral traits. It adds a little value but remains minimal.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence of 9 words. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a tool whose purpose is clear from the name.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description should provide more context (e.g., what the tool returns, error conditions, parameter roles). It only covers the core action and a prerequisite, but leaves the agent without enough information to confidently invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description bears full responsibility for explaining parameters. The description only references 'Area' (corresponding to area_id) but offers no explanation of 'name', 'description', or 'sort_order'. It adds some semantic context for one parameter but fails to clarify the others.

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') and resource ('Project'), and adds a scope ('under an owned active Area'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task or create_container. The capitalization of 'Project' and 'Area' reinforces the domain-specific resource types.

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 implies a precondition: the parent Area must be owned and active. This gives some usage context, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_container, create_collection) or mention any exclusion cases. Usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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