Create project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact not present in the annotations — that the call consumes no credits — but omits auth requirements, response shape, and side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. The terseness is a byproduct of under-specification rather than wasteful structure, so it is efficient but leaves obvious room to add value.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain at least the key inputs and any auth/permission requirements. It covers neither, leaving an agent able to infer only the operation and its credit cost.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does not name or explain any of name, country, language, or websiteUrl. A caller learns nothing about which inputs are required or what they mean.

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 and resource ('Create a project') and even names the underlying endpoint (POST /api/v1/projects). This is unambiguous and lets an agent distinguish it from the read siblings get_project/list_projects, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. The only usage-relevant hint is 'Does not use credits,' which speaks to cost rather than to selection between tools.

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