Create project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals that team_gid is required in an organizational context, but omits details on permissions, return value, side effects, or whether the operation is safely reversible. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part adds value, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is very sparse. It lacks information about what happens after creation, return format, error conditions, or relationships to other resources. An agent would need additional reasoning or tool introspection to use this tool correctly in complex workflows.

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?

The schema covers 71% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds critical context that team_gid is conditionally required ('in an organization'), which is not indicated in the schema where team_gid is optional. This goes beyond what the schema provides and aids correct invocation.

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 a project' and the resource 'in a workspace', with a specific condition about team_gid in an organization. While the name itself is distinct, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like project_update or project_duplicate.

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 indicates when to use the tool (creating a project) and a conditional requirement for team_gid in an organization. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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