Create project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the parent project must exist or be accessible, what happens on duplicate titles, or what is returned after creation. Only the nesting behavior is disclosed.

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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the optional behavior second. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 simple three-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation with no annotations, it leaves auth requirements, parent-project validity conditions, and post-creation behavior unstated.

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 100%, so the schema already documents title, description, and parentProjectId. The description's mention of nesting adds only marginal framing over the schema's 'Parent project id for nesting', which is the baseline-3 case.

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 ('Create a new Vikunja project'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_task and create_label that share the verb but target other resources. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling doing the same thing, but the resource specificity is enough for an agent to disambiguate.

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 phrase 'Optionally nest it under a parent project' implies when the parentProjectId path applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated alternatives or exclusions. Usage is left to inference from context.

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