vikunja_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the create action and resource, without disclosing required fields, return behavior, permission requirements, or side effects. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core operation in the most concise form possible while remaining 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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is not enough context for confident invocation. The schema covers parameters, but the description omits expected response, behavioral caveats, and any additional contextual details 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%, with each parameter documented (e.g., 'Project title.', 'Hex color like #4F46E5.'). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully compensates, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new Vikunja project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like update/delete/list projects and create task/label. However, it does not add extra detail about scope or special behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vikunja_update_project, vikunja_delete_project, or the numerous vk_post_projects variants. The verb implies creation, but no prerequisites, context, or exclusions are stated.

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