projects_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It confirms this is a create (write) operation. It states the response will contain a JSON object with the new project's attributes, which is helpful. However, it omits what happens if the sender_id doesn't exist, whether duplicates are prevented, or rate limiting. The description adds but does not fully carry the burden given no annotations.

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 three short sentences focused on creation, endpoint, and response. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, the second sentence ('A project will be created using the provided information.') is somewhat redundant with the first.

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 8 parameters with full schema coverage and a stated output schema presence, the description does not need to explain return values. It mentions the JSON response structure, which is appropriate. However, it lacks context on error scenarios, default values, or parameter constraints (e.g., TTL, URI formats) that could affect agent decision-making. For a creation tool with many optional parameters and a documented output schema, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, meaning each of the 8 parameters has a description in the schema. The number of parameters (8) is high, but the description itself adds no parameter-level information—it merely says 'required attributes' without listing or clarifying them. The schema descriptions are present, so the description provides little added meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'To create a new project' using a POST request to a specific endpoint, which is a very specific verb+resource. It also names the required attributes. The sibling tools include both projects_delete, projects_update, etc., and this description effectively differentiates it as the creation tool.

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 mentions the HTTP method and endpoint, giving some implementation context. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., projects_update for modifying existing projects) or any prerequisites such as requiring a sender_id. There is no guidance on error conditions or validation rules beyond noting required attributes in the schema.

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