Create subproject

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the operation creates an *empty* subproject, returns its UUID, counts as 'One undo step', and cannot create anything directly below a portfolio. It doesn't cover error/permission behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return value, then alternative routing, then the portfolio edge case, then the undo note. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no prose beyond the UUID mention, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the creation scope, the empty-subproject constraint, routing alternatives, and portfolio semantics, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for parentUuid by explaining its portfolio semantics (names a project or subproject inside it) and the constraint that nothing is created directly below the portfolio. That is genuine added value over the schema's 'empty = the main project'.

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?

States a specific verb (Creates) and resource (subproject, clarified as a summary task) and adds the return value (UUID). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like rillsoft_project_create and rillsoft_task_create.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: grouping existing elements goes through rillsoft_element_subproject_group, later modification through rillsoft_subproject_update, deletion through rillsoft_subproject_delete. This is exactly the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance the dimension rewards.

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