create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that 'identical retries are safe,' which is meaningful idempotency context. However, it does not say what happens on slug conflicts, whether permissions are required, or whether the slug is immutable after creation.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The slug constraint and idempotency note are both packed efficiently into it.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It says nothing about required inputs beyond the schema, duplicate handling, permissions, or what the caller receives after creation.

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 must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies project_id as a lowercase stable slug, but leaves name and description without semantic detail or constraints. One of three parameters is meaningfully explained, which is insufficient at this coverage level.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a project.' The added mention of a 'stable lowercase slug' makes the kind of project identifier clearer. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as create_task or list_projects, but the resource noun does most of that work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or create_task. It also omits prerequisites, such as permissions or whether the project must be absent before creation.

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