acc_create_project

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that product activation is asynchronous, that polling acc_get_project is required, and that adding a project admin triggers member copy from the template. It also reveals the API limitation that location cannot be updated later, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, follows with a concise workflow, and ends with a key caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure with line breaks makes the asynchronous and location-immutability notes easy to parse without being verbose.

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?

Despite 19 parameters and a complex workflow, the description covers prerequisites (account admin), asynchronous behavior, post-creation steps, and the sole limitation around location updates. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, so the description is complete for agent decision-making.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful param context: location parameters (latitude/longitude, address) can only be set at creation, and template_project_id cloning is tied to the workflow. It also clarifies that 'Template Project' is used when creating a template, though the schema already mentions this.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Create an ACC project (optionally cloned from a template)' and positions it as 'the first step of setting up a CDE.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acc_get_project and acc_list_projects by focusing on creation and optional template cloning.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: the signed-in user must be an account admin, and this is the only place to set location data. It also names alternatives and follow-ups: poll acc_get_project until products are active, then use acc_add_project_user, and change location via the ACC UI since no update endpoint exists.

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