searchatlas_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate domains, or what the expected response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing, making it maximally concise while still being clear.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what data is returned, error conditions, or how this tool integrates with the broader SearchAtlas ecosystem. The user gets minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone, though the description doesn't enhance understanding of how these parameters affect project creation.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new SearchAtlas project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'searchatlas_list_projects' by focusing on creation rather than listing. However, it doesn't specify what a 'SearchAtlas project' entails or how it differs from other project types in the system.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'searchatlas_list_projects' and 'searchatlas_run_playbook', there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate contexts for project creation versus other operations. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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