Create project

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

Annotations declare the operation is not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent with creating a project. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Alto never stores generated blurbs' and 'Name + purpose only' clarify what data is persisted and what is intentionally ignored, reducing the risk of misuse.

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 exceptionally compact: two sentences deliver the action, the resource, the allowed kind values, the relevant parameters, and a key non-obvious behavior. Every clause contributes, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 create operation with three flat parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information an agent needs: what to create, what kind values are allowed, and what is not stored. It lacks a return-value note and explicit sequencing guidance, but the low complexity keeps this from being a significant gap.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates partially by listing the allowed kind values and emphasizing that only name and purpose matter. It does not explain the default/optional behavior of purpose or the required nature of name, but it adds enough semantic meaning to distinguish the 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Create a project container (Flow 1).' It clarifies the container's scope with 'kind: studying|writing|research' and distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_timeline or list_projects by focusing on the project entity itself.

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 'Flow 1' label implies this is the initial step in a workflow, and 'Name + purpose only — Alto never stores generated blurbs' hints at what the tool is not for. However, it does not explicitly state when to use create_project versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tool as a fallback or complement.

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