create_project_from_template

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful post-creation state: the project starts in discovery with requirements and user stories open and linked to each other. However it says nothing about permissions, what happens on an invalid templateId, whether the result is idempotent, or what identifier comes back.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no padding. 'Adapt them afterwards with the usual tools' is slightly vague filler but still short and useful as a workflow hint.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives good initial-state context but leaves the agent guessing about the required templateId's provenance and about what the call returns. Adequate, not complete.

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 only 50%: 'name' is documented in the schema (including its default to the template name), but 'templateId' is completely bare in both schema and description. The description never explains that templateId should come from list_templates, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the one required parameter.

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 with a qualifying modifier ('from a starter template'), which meaningfully separates it from the sibling create_project. It never names create_project explicitly, but the template-based scope is clear enough for an agent to pick between them.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'from a starter template'; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_project or duplicate_project. 'Adapt them afterwards with the usual tools' gestures at a follow-up workflow but names no concrete tools.

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