create_feature_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it's a WRITE operation and requires a specific scope, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that—such as idempotency, error handling on duplicate projects, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states action and resource; the second provides prerequisites. Information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and requirements but misses details like return values, error conditions, and idempotency. It adequately describes the 'what' and 'require' but not the full behavioral contract.

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?

The description explicitly lists expected fields ('key, name, description, owner, maintainers') beyond the schema's generic 'Project body per the Feature Management API spec.' Since schema description coverage is 100% (one parameter described), the description adds valuable context, clarifying what the open object should contain.

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 clearly states 'Create a Feature Management project (WRITE).' The verb 'Create' and resource 'Feature Management project' are specific. The '(WRITE)' explicitly indicates it's a write operation, distinguishing it from read-only tools. Among siblings, the name and description differentiate from create_feature and create_feature_flag.

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 includes the required scope ('feature-management:projects:write') and the DT_ENABLE_WRITES condition, providing clear prerequisites. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_feature_flag) or scenarios where it should not be used.

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