Create Dialogue Project

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description explicitly states it creates a new project folder and returns the created object with generated ID and timestamps, which is consistent with annotations. It adds useful context about the shared workspace but does not discuss permissions or error behavior. Given the annotations already set expectations, this is solid.

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 with a clear opening sentence, a brief explanatory line, useful examples, and formatted Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose; there is no fluff 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 creation tool with 3 parameters, the description is complete: it states the purpose, workspace context, parameter meanings, and return value. The sibling tools imply the broader workflow, and there is no output schema to explain. No significant gaps remain.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description repeats the parameter explanations nearly verbatim, adding only a slight elaboration on 'metadata' (e.g., framework references). It does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new project folder in the shared dialogue workspace.' It further clarifies that projects are top-level containers for conversation threads, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like dialogue_create_thread. The examples reinforce the intended scope.

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 clear context: projects are top-level containers for related threads, implying this tool is for creating those containers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling tool list and phrasing make the use case evident.

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