gatekeeper_create_project

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by disclosing the required container state and the strict step ordering, which helps the agent understand side-effect dependencies.

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 compact and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose before the prerequisite and deployment order. The numbered workflow is somewhat long but each step earns its place by giving the agent actionable sequencing information.

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?

Despite useful deployment-order context, the tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, yet the description explains none of the parameter semantics, required field formats, or expected output. An agent would struggle to construct a valid call without additional information.

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 0%, and the description provides no detail about any of the 11 parameters such as slug, domain, type, amountDue, currency, or dueDate. Since the schema carries no descriptions, the tool description was the only place to compensate, but it does not explain the meaning, format, or accepted values of any 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?

The description opens with 'Create a new Gatekeeper project registration', which is a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like gatekeeper_update_project, gatekeeper_delete_project, and gatekeeper_list_projects by the 'Create' action and 'new project registration' object.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite (Docker container must exist and be running) and names the tool to use first (gatekeeper_create_container). It also provides a numbered deployment order showing exactly where this step fits, and closes with the business context 'Use for onboarding new clients.'

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