create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add one useful behavioral detail—the write permission requirement—but it does not disclose duplicate-slug behavior, validation failure handling, side effects, or response shape. The disclosure is partial but not absent.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the action/resource is front-loaded. It is lean and scannable, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 12 parameters, 25% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is not complete enough. The schema gives types, formats, and required fields, but an agent is left to infer the semantics of nine parameters, behavior on conflicts, and what the tool returns.

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 only 25%, so the description needed to compensate. It does not mention required title/slug, nor clarify ambiguous fields such as description, short_description, body_html, skill_ids, or category_ids. It adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'project.'

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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('new portfolio project'), and the portfolio context distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools. It also contrasts implicitly with update_project and delete_project by indicating a new record rather than a modification or removal.

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 only guidance is 'Requires write permission,' which is a prerequisite rather than a selection rule. It does not state when to use this tool versus update_project, nor does it exclude any alternatives, leaving usage largely implied by the verb.

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