create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the folder placement behavior and optional attribute settings, but it is silent on response shape, required name, defaults, validation failures, and side effects. This is useful but not deeply transparent.

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 no filler. The placement guidance is front-loaded, followed by the optional parameters, and every clause adds distinct value.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested object, no output schema, no annotations), the description gives a usable mental model for basic creation and folder placement. However, it does not explain return values, defaults for unspecified fields, or error behavior, so an agent is left with open questions for edge cases.

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 is the only prose for parameters. It adds real meaning for folderId and names type, status, reviewInterval, and tags with their enum/behavioral context, but it omits note, dueDate, deferDate, flagged, and the required name. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not completely.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new OmniFocus project') and clarifies the main sub-scope: top-level vs inside a folder. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_folder and create_task.

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?

It gives explicit placement guidance: omit folderId for top-level, provide it for inside a folder. It does not explicitly contrast with edit_project or other alternatives, but the creation context is clear and the main decision point is handled.

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