Create Railway Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation and linking but fails to detail critical aspects like permissions required, whether this is a destructive operation, error handling, or what happens if the project already exists. This leaves significant gaps in understanding 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the complexity of creating and linking a project with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on outcomes, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 50% (only 'workspacePath' has a description), and the description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It implies parameters are needed but doesn't explain their roles or constraints, resulting in a baseline score due to moderate schema coverage.

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 new Railway project') and includes an additional outcome ('and link it to the current directory'), which specifies the tool's purpose beyond just creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-environment' or 'link-service', which could involve similar concepts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list-projects' for checking existing ones or 'deploy-template' for starting from a template. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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