basecamp_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely restates the action without any additional context. It doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, side effects, or return values. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name and provides no value beyond the structured schema.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse. While it is very brief, it is appropriate for a simple action and does not contain any waste.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line description. It provides no information about post-creation behavior, errors, permissions, or return payload. Given the context of similar tools and the lack of surrounding details, the description is severely under-specified for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Project name' and 'Project description'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, as it simply indicates the overall action without detailing parameter relationships or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('Basecamp project'), which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools such as basecamp_get_project, basecamp_update_project, and basecamp_trash_project. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like basecamp_create_card or basecamp_create_todo. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The context of sibling tools implies it is the creation endpoint for projects, but no explicit direction is given.

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