wisdom_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only states 'Create a new project' with no mention of side effects, default behaviors (set_as_current defaults to true, visibility defaults to public which syncs to hub), permissions required, or what happens after creation. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence 'Create a new project' contains no wasted words and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified to the point of bordering on restating the tool name. It earns its place but contributes minimal information beyond the name itself.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify return behavior, the default set_as_current=true behavior, or the public-visibility hub sync implication, leaving the agent to discover these from schema field descriptions alone.

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%, so all five parameters (name, visibility, description, default_tags, set_as_current) are already well-documented in the schema itself, including the enum and default values. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because 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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('project'), stating clearly what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wisdom_update_project, wisdom_set_project, or wisdom_clear_project, but the 'create' verb inherently separates it from update/set/clear/get/list operations.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent gets no context about prerequisites, when creating versus setting/updating a project is appropriate, or situations where a different sibling would be the right choice.

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