create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key side effect (project initialized with an empty main branch) and the return value, which matters since there is no output schema. It omits permissions required, name-uniqueness/failure behavior if the project already exists, and idempotency.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its result, with no filler. Every clause (empty main branch, head token) adds information.

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 a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the creation effect and return value but leaves error conditions, permissions, and parameter format unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% — the single 'project' string parameter has no description at all. The description hints it identifies the project but does not say whether it is a name, slug, ID, or path, nor any format or length constraints, so the gap is not compensated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create a project), plus the resulting state (empty main branch) and return value (head token). The word 'project' distinguishes it from branch/merge/compare siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 create versus using the 'projects' listing or other siblings, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and verb.

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