create_project

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

No annotations provided. Description reveals that the description field is used for ASR hints and meeting minutes context, but lacks information on side effects, authorization, or behavior on duplicate names.

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 short sentences with no filler. Efficient but could be better structured. The first sentence states purpose, second adds param context.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's full behavior, return value, or prerequisites. Missing details for name and minutes_template.

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%, so description must compensate. It only explains the description parameter's purpose ('ASR 힌트와 회의록 작성 맥락'). Name and minutes_template remain unexplained.

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?

Description states '프로젝트 등록/수정' (register/edit project) but tool name is create_project, creating ambiguity about whether it only creates or also updates. The verb and resource are clear but the scope is unclear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist (list_projects, get_project_context) but description does not differentiate usage contexts.

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