create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: independent tasks can be claimed in parallel, all task IDs are returned for immediate claiming, and append mode adds sub-tasks to an existing project. It does not discuss side effects like irreversibility or failure atomicity, but the main operational traits an agent needs are present.

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 concise: five short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes either a usage pattern, a behavioral note, or append-mode guidance. No filler 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?

The description covers the key operational aspects: bulk project creation, dependency wiring, parallel claiming, return of task IDs, and append mode. With 100% schema coverage of all parameters, the definition is nearly complete. It could have explicitly mentioned that title and description are required for new projects, but that information is already present in the schema.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces depends_on_indices and project_id but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action and resource: 'Create a project with multiple sub-tasks in one call.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling create_task by emphasizing bulk creation of multiple sub-tasks, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the 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 description gives clear usage context: use this tool for multi-sub-task projects, wire dependencies with depends_on_indices, and use append mode by passing project_id. It does not explicitly name create_task as the alternative, but the usage context is clear enough that an agent can decide when this tool is appropriate.

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