Create a project

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the externalId addressing scheme and the invitation follow-up, but doesn't specify what happens on creation (e.g., response shape, idempotency behavior beyond schema). The description adds some context beyond annotations but leaves behavior on creation largely implicit.

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 concise sentences that front-load purpose, then explain key usage and the next step. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place by conveying critical workflow information.

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 5 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and no detailed annotations, the description covers the core workflow adequately. It omits response format and error handling, but these are less critical for a creation tool whose output can be inferred. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool in the intended context.

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 coverage is 80%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds extra meaning for externalId—how to use it for addressing—which goes beyond the schema's pattern description. This elevates parameter understanding beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

Clear verb-resource pair: 'create a project' with explicit customer scope. Distinguishes from siblings like create_invitation by describing the workflow and naming the specific follow-up tool. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

Provides explicit workflow: create project, set externalId, then invite customer with create_invitation. Names the alternative tool directly and states the constraint 'Organization keys only.' This gives clear when-to-use and next-step guidance.

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