Create project

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and does so well: it discloses the uniqueness constraint on code, the critical irreversibility fact that title/code/access cannot be changed later, and a cost/latency estimate (one API call, ~1.5s). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before committing to a write.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint, followed by the sibling pointer and cost. No filler and no repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with a nested settings object and no output schema, the description covers the risk profile (irreversibility, uniqueness) but never says what comes back (e.g. created project id) or how to handle a code collision. Given 100% schema coverage the remaining gap is modest.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by marking title, code and access as immutable-after-creation and restating code uniqueness as a workspace-level constraint. It does not clarify the settings object or the access/group dependency, leaving a small gap.

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 specific verb and resource ("Create a project") and explicitly routes reads to the sibling tool qase_project_context, so an agent can distinguish it from qase_project_delete and qase_project_context without opening any schema.

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?

It tells the agent when to act deliberately ("no update endpoint afterwards... choose them deliberately") and names the alternative for reading existing projects. It stops short of stating exclusions such as permission prerequisites or what to do if the code collides, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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