create-project

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

Despite minimal annotations (all false), the description provides rich behavioral details: auto-provisioning of database, connection pooling, backups, immutable slug, framework support, custom domain setup, and DNS instructions. No contradiction with annotations; the description fully compensates for the lack of annotation hints.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds value (provisions, constraints, post-creation actions). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly tightened, but the verbosity is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 description covers creation behavior, automatic provisioning, constraints, and post-creation steps (custom domains via API). However, it lacks explicit details about the tool's return value or response structure, which is notable since no output schema exists. This gap slightly reduces completeness for an agent that needs to chain actions.

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 input schema already covers 'name' with a description of slug generation. The description adds meaningful constraints: slug is lowercase, hyphens, max 63 chars, and immutable after creation. This extra detail helps the agent generate appropriate values beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Create a new project on sota.io.' with a specific verb and resource. It goes into extensive detail about what is automatically provisioned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy or list-projects that serve different purposes.

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 the tool is for creating projects but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Compared to siblings like add-domain, the usage context is clear only by name.

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