Create project

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

Annotations already indicate non-idempotent and non-read-only behavior; the description adds useful concrete detail: calling again creates another project even with the same name, and does not update an existing one. This exceeds what the annotations alone convey, though it does not mention permissions or what the response contains.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, both useful: the first gives the purpose and usage context, the second warns about duplicate creation/non-update behavior. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 simple two-parameter create tool, this is reasonably complete: purpose, usher intent, and the key non-idempotence caveat are covered. It does not describe the return value or behavior on invalid workspaceId, but no output schema exists and the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema ('Project name', 'Workspace to create the project in'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond those schemas; it mentions the project is empty and holds services, which only loosely relates to parameters.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('brand-new empty Lizard project to hold services'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling service_create and addon_create tools. The phrase 'brand-new empty' also clarifies that the tool does not modify existing projects.

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?

Accurately states when to use the tool: when the user wants a brand-new empty Lizard project. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives such as service_create, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance, but the use case is clear and not misleading.

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