create-project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns the created project as JSON (uuid, title, scope, color, chats), which informs the agent about the output. It also mentions the optional seeding behavior with existing chats, a key side effect. It lacks details on error cases or permissions but covers the core behavior well.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then providing return format and a useful implementation hint. Every sentence adds value with no filler, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 provides the return format (JSON with specific fields), which substitutes for a missing output schema. The input schema fully documents all parameters. The tool's simplicity and clear sibling context (create vs. list/add/delete) make this sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters already described in the schema. The description adds the phrase 'optionally seed it with existing chats,' which reinforces the meaning of chat_uuids but does not significantly extend beyond schema details. Therefore, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the action: 'Create a syntx.ai project (a.k.a. folder) and optionally seed it with existing chats.' It identifies the resource (project) and the specific capability (seeding with chats), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-projects or add-chats-to-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 implies when to use this tool: when a new project (folder) is needed, especially with optional initial chats. It also mentions the API mirror `syntx.folders.create`, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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