Create a project you own and initialize its system Later phase so you can add nodes immediately. The ID defaults to a slug of the project name.
Create a project you own and seed its system "Later" phase, so nodes can be added immediately. id defaults to a slug of the name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | 2-63 chars, lowercase letters/numbers/dashes | |
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: ownership ('a project you own'), a non-obvious side effect (auto-seeding the 'Later' phase), and id defaulting to a slug of the name. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens on an id collision, which is a notable gap given the slug default.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and side effect, then the id default. No filler, every clause adds 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?
No output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a 2-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (phase seeding, id defaulting) but leaves collision handling and permissions unstated.
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 50% — only `id` is documented in the schema while `name` is bare. The description compensates for part of that gap by explaining that `id` defaults to a slug of `name`, linking the two parameters in a way the schema does not.
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 and resource ('Create a project') plus its non-obvious side effect ('seed its system "Later" phase'), and the default id derivation. Easily distinguished from siblings like list_projects, rename_project, and archive_project.
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 through the rationale 'so nodes can be added immediately' — the agent can infer this precedes node creation, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusion against other project paths.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.