create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a project but doesn't mention any behavioral traits: whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate projectId, if it requires specific permissions, what the response contains, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and resource.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with 4 parameters) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a project object, error handling), behavioral traits, or usage context. For a create tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to be fully helpful to an agent.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all four parameters clearly (projectId, width, height, name). The baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't compensate with additional context like default values 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 resource ('new pixel art project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'list_projects' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation-like tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it doesn't reach the highest level of sibling differentiation.

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., whether projects must be unique), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing projects), or refer to related tools like 'list_projects' for context. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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