Create a project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the auth requirement and the specific failure mode for project-scoped tokens, how to surface that failure to the user, and the returned contentVersion contract ('pass it as base_version to the first write') that prevents a downstream write error. That is exactly the kind of context annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false) cannot convey.

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?

Return values and the blank/template distinction are front-loaded, then auth caveats follow. It's a single dense, em-dash-heavy sentence that takes close reading, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return contract (id, contentVersion, seeded files) and the follow-on usage of contentVersion. Auth prerequisites and error handling round it out; nothing an agent needs to call and chain from this tool is missing.

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 100% and the 'template' property already documents folders, venue kits, 'blank', and the omit-default in detail. The description's mention of 'blank or from a template' and 'files the template seeded' restates rather than extends that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new project'), names both modes (blank or from a template), and enumerates what it returns (id, contentVersion, seeded files). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_projects or trash_project 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?

Gives a concrete precondition (a token with access to all projects; a project-scoped token cannot create) and an escalation path (relay the refusal; the user can mint an unscoped token in Settings → Agent access). It doesn't contrast against any sibling tool, but for a create operation the usage context is otherwise fully covered.

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