create_project

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists parameters but omits side effects, error states, permission requirements, or consequences of creating a project (e.g., duplicates, validation rules). This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficient: one sentence for purpose followed by bullet-point arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly verbose with argument descriptions but acceptable.

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 7 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers parameter meanings adequately but lacks behavioral context (error handling, naming conventions, or project limits). The output schema presumably covers return values, so this is not a major gap.

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 0%, so the description bears full burden for parameter meaning. It adds value beyond the schema by explaining 'title' as required, 'schedule' options, and clarifying optionality. However, some parameters (e.g., tags) are only briefly described.

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 'Create a new project' and distinguishes projects as multi-step tasks with sub-tasks. This differentiates it from create_task and update_project, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like complete_project or delete_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?

The description implies usage for creating projects but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_project for modifications). No exclusionary or prerequisite information is provided.

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