Create project

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

Annotations already flag non-idempotency and destructiveness, but the description adds concrete consequence: calling again creates another project even with the same name. That is useful elaboration beyond the hint, though it doesn't explain the destructiveHint=true profile (a create tool) or what happens to the workspace on failure.

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 tight sentences with the triggering condition front-loaded and the duplicate-creation warning immediately after. No filler.

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 two-parameter, fully described create tool with no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. It would be stronger if it told the agent what is returned (e.g., project ID) for chaining into service_create.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the notion that the project is empty and name may duplicate, not format or scoping detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('create a brand-new empty Lizard project to hold services') and distinguishes creation from update semantics. It does not name a sibling alternative, but no other create-a-project tool exists, so the differentiation gap is minor.

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?

'Use this when the user wants to create a brand-new empty Lizard project' gives a clear triggering condition. It also warns that repeat calls make duplicates rather than updating, which is a when-not-to-use hint, though it doesn't point at a specific alternative tool.

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