create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the create action. It does not say where the project lands by default (parent defaults to 'inbox' only in the schema), whether creation is reversible, what happens to the source inbox item, or what errors are possible.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic ('Convert an inbox item into one with this'), but nothing is wasted.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and 29% schema coverage the description is far too thin. An agent lacks the parameter semantics and behavioral context needed to call it confidently.

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 only 29% (just 'parent' and 'priority' documented), so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It references the parent parameter only obliquely in the update_task workflow snippet and says nothing about note, labels, do_date, or due_date.

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+resource ('Create a project') and adds the useful gloss '(container for tasks)' that distinguishes it conceptually from create_task. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the sibling create_category, which is the closest ambiguous alternative.

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 one concrete usage path: converting an inbox item via this plus update_task(parent=…), which is real, actionable guidance. But it offers no when-not guidance and never mentions create_category or create_task as alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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