create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses authentication requirements through the token and api_key parameters, explains that key is auto-generated if empty, and mentions the return value (project ID and key). This goes beyond the raw schema, though it does not cover failure modes or permissions explicitly, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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 description is well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a usage context sentence, a sentence about the return value, and a concise Args list. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler or repetition.

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?

Although the output schema is not shown, the signal confirms one exists. The description explains the tool's role, when to use it, all parameters with their semantics, and what is returned (project ID and key). It also references downstream tools, giving a complete picture for a creation tool with six parameters and one required field.

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. It does so thoroughly with an Args section explaining every parameter, including formats (pr_xxxx for key, sk_live_ for api_key), defaults (language: 'javascript', visibility: 'private'), and the auto-generation behavior for key. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Create a new Symbols project on the platform' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this from sibling tools like save_to_project and publish by specifying it creates a new project rather than saving to or publishing an existing one.

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 description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user wants to save generated components to a new project.' It also mentions the returned ID and key are for use with save_to_project and publish, implying these are follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives directly.

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