Create Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new project to track,' which restates the title and gives no details about duplicate-name handling, required permissions, side effects, or response behavior. This is a notable gap for a creation 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage triggers. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 is a simple create with only one required parameter, the schema covers all optional fields, and there is no output schema requiring explanation. The main missing context is a pointer to update/repo-path tools for existing projects, but the trigger sentence ('doesn't exist yet') partially covers when not to use it.

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 the parameters (name, repo_path, tech_stack, description) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') with a clear resource ('a new project to track'), and the usage context ('when starting a new project') clarifies scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with create_task/list_projects, so it misses the full 5.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'when starting a new project or when a user mentions a project that doesn't exist yet.' This gives positive triggers and an implicit negative case (existing projects are not for this tool), but it doesn't mention alternatives such as set_project_repo_path for adding metadata to an existing project.

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