project.create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only states 'Create project' with no mention of side effects, error conditions, persistence behavior, or auth requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the behavioral impact.

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 extremely concise (two words) but at the cost of any meaningful information. This is under-specification, not conciseness. A single sentence that added parameter context would be better.

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 zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a context with many sibling project tools, the description provides no information about the purpose or usage of the tool within the broader suite. It is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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%. The description does not explain the meaning or format of the two required parameters ('name', 'path'). An agent cannot infer valid inputs or constraints from the description alone.

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 'Create project' restates the tool name and title with no additional specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like project.create_folder or project.create_file, which also create resources within a project. This is a tautology.

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 (e.g., project.create_folder for sub-resources, project.open for existing projects). No prerequisites or context provided.

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