wealthbox.projects.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create project' with an example, offering no details about side effects, required permissions, potential errors, or return values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the action first ('Create project') and then provides a small illustrative example. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely incomplete. It lacks details about required fields, date formats, status options, and response behavior. The minimal example does not sufficiently cover the complexity of the tool.

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?

The schema has 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, but the description includes an example showing 'name' and 'description' fields, which adds some semantic meaning. However, it does not explain 'status', 'due_date', or the nested 'body' object, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool creates a project, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like projects.update or projects.delete, but the create action is unambiguous among the list of project tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether to use update for modifications, or any other context that would help an agent decide between create and other operations.

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