create_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by noting the tool cannot make the project public or delete it, and implies it creates private projects only. This is helpful context but doesn't disclose auth requirements, response format, or what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, economical and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place, but it could potentially fold in parameter usage guidance without bloating much.

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 no output schema, 0% param coverage, and 5 undocumented parameters, the description is incomplete. The ambiguous relationship between 'account' and 'owner' parameters is a critical gap for a tool with write semantics. The agent would need to guess which fields map to what context, risking incorrect API calls.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no parameter explanation. With 5 parameters and 4 required (owner, ownerType, account, title), the description does not clarify the distinction between 'account' and 'owner', nor the meaning of 'hostname'. The agent cannot determine how to correctly populate these fields from the description alone.

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 it creates a private GitHub Projects v2 project for an allowed user or organization, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like create_repository or create_issue, though the 'Project v2' and 'private' qualifiers provide reasonable clarity.

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 notes it cannot make the project public or delete it, which gives some exclusions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternative tools, nor does it explain the 'allowed user or organization' prerequisite clarity. The context of creating a project is fairly self-evident given the tool family.

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