create_project

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

The description discloses an idempotent behavior ('or return'), which is a useful trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, error handling, or what happens on conflict. The single behavioral hint is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise in length, but it is severely under-specified. For a tool with three parameters and no other documentation, the brevity reflects lack of content rather than efficient writing. It does not front-load any critical usage details.

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 tool creates or returns a project, but the description doesn't explain what happens if the project already exists, what the response looks like, or any constraints on the parameters. Despite having an output schema, the description provides no guidance on return values or side effects. With no annotations, the tool is fundamentally incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for any of the three parameters, and the tool description provides no additional meaning about project_key, title, or description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb ('create or return') and a specific resource ('project container'). It distinguishes itself from generic operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling create tools like create_family or create_spec. The phrase 'project container' is somewhat vague but sufficient to convey the core purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description simply states the function without any context about selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer 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.