create_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It lists parameters and deprecation notes but omits details like authentication requirements, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens on duplicate names.

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 concise, starting with a purpose sentence followed by a bulleted parameter list. It avoids fluff but could be slightly more structured (e.g., grouping fields).

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 description covers all parameters, notes deprecations, and provides format hints (ISO 8601 for dates). With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. Missing sibling comparisons or usage conditions, but sufficient for invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by detailing each parameter, including types, defaults, and deprecation warnings (e.g., sequential is deprecated, use project_type). It explains the pairing of review_interval_value and review_interval_unit. However, some fields like completed_by_children lack explanation.

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 opens with 'Create one or more projects,' clearly stating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tasks, create_folders, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_projects or delete_projects. It only describes parameters, leaving usage context implicit.

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