tool_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutation side effect of saving to db/projects.json and notes aspect ratio selection, but it omits details about idempotency, error/failure behavior, or how headless mode affects execution.

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 that efficiently covers the main actions and side effects. The 'Boss Function 1:' prefix is unnecessary but does not significantly harm clarity.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects) and includes an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers creation, DB persistence, and ratio selection, but lacks usage guidance and headless behavior details.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning by referencing 'selects the desired aspect ratio,' but it does not clarify the headless parameter beyond its schema default.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Creates a new Google Flow project page') and adds a unique side effect ('saves the project URL to DB'), clearly distinguishing this creation tool from sibling poster-related tools. It also mentions the aspect ratio selection, aligning with the input 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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used for creating a project rather than editing or generating posters.

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