create_project

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive write. The description adds useful observable behavior by stating the return value ('Returns the created project including its assigned id') and the effect of stageId on board placement. However, it does not disclose side effects such as board automations mutating owner/team, the owner-or-team requirement, or failure modes; those live only in parameter descriptions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: core creation action, required/optional inputs, conditional board-pinning behavior, ID discovery, and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no padding or needless repetition of the schema.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level call contract: what is created, required inputs, optional board placement, and the returned project with its id. The schema's property descriptions provide the deeper caveats (ownership requirements, board automations, custom-field quirks). A small gap is that the description calls owner/team 'optional' without warning that at least one is required, though the schema covers this.

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 high (82%), so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates information already present in the schema: 'Requires partyId and name' mirrors the required array, and 'stageId uniquely identifies a stage within a board' matches the stageId property description. It adds minimal value beyond pointing to both list_boards and list_stages for ID discovery.

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 and resource: 'Create a new project in Capsule CRM linked to a party.' It clearly distinguishes create_project from sibling creation tools like create_party, create_opportunity, and create_task, and from update_project/get_project by framing the operation as creation with a returned project.

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 gives clear context: required parameters ('Requires partyId and name'), optional parameters, and conditional guidance for pinning to a board ('To pin a project to a specific board+stage on creation, pass stageId'). It also names discovery tools (list_boards + list_stages). It does not explicitly contrast with update_project or other create_* siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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