create_project

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

With no annotations, the description discloses auto-generation of :ID:, :CREATED:, and default :STATUS:, which is beyond the schema. It also indicates the required structure of the input. However, it does not mention side effects, error behavior, or return value, though these are less critical for a create operation.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then details the input requirements, and finally directs to a guide. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, input format, and points to a resource for full specifications. It omits return behavior and error handling, but these are not essential for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, given the guide reference.

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 description substantially enriches the single parameter (project_entry) beyond the schema's one-line definition. It specifies the required structure (level-1 heading, :PROPERTIES: drawer with :CUSTOM_ID:, level-2 sections) and points to a detailed format guide, giving an agent clear guidance on constructing valid input.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (project file), and clarifies it's from an org-formatted string. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying project creation specifically, and mentions auto-generated fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for creating new projects but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like create_task or create_journal_entry. It gives no when-not guidance or direct comparisons, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and context.

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