create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the initial lifecycle state ('discovery'), the phase-gating behavior of 'strict' (blocks advancing until each phase is complete) versus 'free' (allows advancing and reports what was skipped). It omits permissions/auth needs, name-uniqueness or failure behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the required inputs, then the mode behavior. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parts an agent cannot infer: the starting phase, the mandatory inputs, and the gating semantics. It leaves the return value (project identifier/handle) and any naming constraints unstated, a modest gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 60%: goal, users and problem are already documented in the schema, but 'mode' has no schema description and 'name' none at all. The description compensates for the most important gap by explaining what strict vs free actually do, adding meaning beyond the bare enum list.

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+resource ("Create a design project") and immediately characterizes the resulting object (starts in 'discovery' phase with required problem/users/goal), which separates it from update_project, duplicate_project and list_projects. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Creation intent is unambiguous, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against the many neighbouring tools (duplicate_project, import_requirements, update_project, set_project_mode). The mode sentence explains a parameter's effect rather than routing the agent between tools, so usage is only implied.

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