create_project

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

The description discloses a useful behavioral trait: it returns a summary by default and full data when verbose=true. However, with no annotations provided, it carries the full burden of transparency. It omits side effects (e.g., persistence, idempotency), permission requirements, or error behavior, which are important 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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then give a key usage tip. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 5 required, an enum, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to clarify the types of projects that can be created, the format/purpose of dates, or what the 'summary' and 'full data' actually contain. An agent would lack critical information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only explains the 'verbose' parameter, while ignoring name, description, projectType, startDate, and targetDate. The schema's enum for projectType is not mentioned, and the meaning of date fields or required fields is left unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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 clear action ('Create') and a resource ('project roadmap'), but the qualifier 'roadmap' is misleading because the schema's projectType enum allows 'roadmap', 'skill-tree', or 'kanban'. This narrows the tool's capability inaccurately and could cause an agent to think only roadmap projects can be created.

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 like update_project or create_task. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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