Create a client project

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds two non-obvious behaviors: name, tagline and description are asynchronously backfilled from the site when omitted, and the call consumes no credits. It does not cover idempotency/duplicate handling or what state the new project starts in (draft vs. live), which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts (what it creates, what it costs). No repetition of schema or annotation content.

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?

For a 23-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description gives a solid mental model: minimal input is a URL, everything else backfills or is optional, and no credits are spent. It omits what the call returns (e.g. the new project id needed for a subsequent launch_project), which is the one real gap.

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 coverage is 87%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning and the baseline would be 3. The description adds value by generalizing the auto-fill behavior beyond the schema's note on 'name' to also cover tagline and description, which the schema does not state for those fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a project') and scopes it to a client's product via its URL, so the sole required parameter is visible in the first clause. It also explicitly names the boundary against the sibling launch_project, letting an agent separate creation from launching without opening either schema.

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 closing sentence gives a clear conditional rule — creating is free, credits are only consumed by launch_project — which effectively tells the agent when to pick this tool over that alternative. It stops short of naming other siblings (update_project, preview_launch) or stating preconditions/preferred ordering explicitly.

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