Add Project Tool

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real weight: it discloses the confirmation-before-creation requirement, conditional client creation, team-level (not client) visibility, and that it returns a slug. It says nothing about permissions, duplicate rejection, or what happens when creation fails, so the mutation's risk profile is only partially covered.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (action, visibility, preconditions, return value), with the action front-loaded. The telegraphic "The whole team (not clients)" sentence is the one rough spot in an otherwise tight definition.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral hazards (confirmation flow, conditional client creation, return value) but leaves out permission requirements, side effects of template instantiation, and error behavior. Adequate, not complete.

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 every parameter is already documented with examples and defaults. The description only restates that name, client, and lead should be confirmed, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 and resource ("Creates a project") and adds that it can also create the client. The fragment "The whole team (not clients)" is ambiguous — presumably visibility/assignment scope — but the core action is distinguishable from siblings like update_project or use_project.

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?

"Only when the person asks; confirm the name, the client and who leads it first" gives an explicit gating condition and a pre-call confirmation checklist. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. update_project for existing projects), but the when-to-use guidance is clear.

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