create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that creating the special `_global` project when missing is allowed, which is useful, but it does not state whether existing projects are overwritten, what filesystem or workspace changes occur, whether permissions are needed, or what happens on conflicts. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

Two sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the `_global` exception placed second. There is no filler, and both sentences earn their place. The brevity is a structural strength even though it sacrifices completeness elsewhere.

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's complexity—12 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions—the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke it beyond the simplest case. It does not explain what a project map is, how optional fields relate to the map, or the full significance of `_global`. The output schema reduces the need for return-value documentation, but the input-side context remains inadequate.

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 schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the fields. It only mentions 'notes' and never clarifies `working_folder`, `project`, `aka`, `core`, `roles`, `skills`, `include_global`, or the other parameters. This adds almost no semantic value beyond the raw property names.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Create a project map' and optional notes. This distinguishes it from the many create_* siblings by identifying the resource as 'project' rather than stanza, skill, or role. However, 'project map' is unexplained domain jargon, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 imperative 'Create' implies this should be used when a new project map is needed, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to siblings like update_project, materialize, or create_stanza. The only usage nuance is the `_global` edge case, which is helpful but not general selection guidance.

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