创建经营项目

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, but no destructiveHint or idempotentHint, and the description doesn't disclose any side effects, such as whether the project is persisted to a store, requires authentication, or overwrites existing projects with the same name. For a mutation tool, the description should note these details beyond claiming 'creates'.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main verb and purpose. It doesn't waste words, though it could be more informative within the sentence length.

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?

Given the tool has 5 required parameters and is a creation tool, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema), doesn't mention success/failure behavior, and doesn't cover parameter details like 'name' or 'kind' enum values. The description alone would leave an agent guessing about mandatory fields.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions '目标、负责人、业务类型和当前阶段' (objective, owner, kind, stage), but omits 'name' completely, and doesn't explain the 'kind' enum values or the meaning of 'stage' (e.g., expected format or examples). The description adds some meaning but insufficiently.

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 it creates a local business project and enumerates the key fields (target, owner, business type, current stage), which aligns with the schema parameters. It distinguishes this from project_list, project_get, and project_snapshot by implying creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other creation tools like task_create, decision_create, or evidence_add. It doesn't mention prerequisites or the context for starting a new project, relying on the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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