Projects Create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about the returned `id` being used for later association and that grouping affects Studio visibility. It does not contradict the annotations, but it doesn't go deeper into permissions or failure modes.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each carrying distinct information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage hint follows directly. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 create tool with a rich schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage. It doesn't explicitly describe the output format, but it does refer to the 'returned `id`', which provides a crucial detail. The schema fills in parameter details, and the explanation of Studio grouping adds context. It feels complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 67%, which is moderate. The description does not add any parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but it does imply the importance of the `id` response. Since the schema already documents most parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a project to group related generations and assets.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explains the grouping purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like projects_update or projects_delete.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Pass the returned `id` as `projectId` on generate_create-generation or assets_create so they show up together in Studio.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before creating generations/assets) and how it relates to specific siblings.

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