wetrack_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that sprints are auto-generated from the timeline and that key serves as a ticket prefix, but it is silent on permissions, validation failures, idempotency, and what happens on success beyond creating the project.

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 two-sentence purpose/behavior header is tight, and the Args block is compact and consistently formatted. The length is justified because the schema has no descriptions to rely on; there is no filler.

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?

All parameters are covered and the main side effect is stated; an output schema exists, so the missing return-value detail is acceptable. The description could still be more complete with explicit prerequisites or exclusions, but it contains what is needed for a correct call.

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%, yet the Args block documents all nine parameters with formats, examples, a default, and the key's purpose. This fully compensates for the schema's silence and is exactly what an agent needs to form correct arguments.

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 opening sentence states a concrete action and resource: 'Create a new project.' The side-effect note about auto-generated sprints adds scope and prevents confusion with project update/delete/list siblings. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 usage context is clear: this is the creation tool for projects, distinct from wetrack_update_project and wetrack_delete_project. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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