Create project

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: what gets created (directory, initial git commit), that existing claims are untouched, and that the tool is not appropriate inside an existing git repo. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with a clear progression: action/effect, safety behavior, usage constraint. Each sentence earns its place, though the idempotency statement is slightly expanded by rephrasing what the annotation already conveys.

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?

For a two-parameter create tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: side effects, idempotency, mode restriction, and the alternative setup path. Minor gap: no explicit statement of what the tool returns or signals on success, but that is not critical for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both parameters are well documented in the schema itself. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning but also does not need to; the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Create or initialize'), resource ('named project in the central store'), and concrete effects ('Creates a directory and an initial git commit'). Clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_projects or capture, which serve entirely different purposes.

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?

Explicitly limits usage to central mode ('hosts with no project directory') and names the alternative ('continuity init CLI') for git-repo contexts. Also explains that calling on an existing name is safe, removing ambiguity about idempotent re-invocation.

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