create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a project but lacks details on permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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?

Given the tool is a mutation (create) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, response structure, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., how projects relate to applications/services). For a creation tool in this context, more guidance is needed.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters (name and description). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as naming constraints or description usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new project') and the resource ('project'), specifying its purpose is 'to organize applications and services.' This distinguishes it from other creation tools like create_application or create_service by focusing on project-level organization. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_project or list_projects beyond the verb difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a team context from get_current_team), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like list_projects for viewing existing projects. Usage is implied only through the verb 'Create,' with no contextual boundaries.

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