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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a project is created, without mentioning side effects, persistence, idempotency, naming constraints, or any other behavioral traits beyond the act of creation.

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 efficient and well-structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact Args list. There is no fluff, and every line contributes useful 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?

For a simple two-parameter create operation, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and the parameters, and the output schema likely covers return values. However, the absence of behavioral context and usage exclusions leaves an agent with limited confidence about side effects and selection criteria.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only restates the property names as 'Project name' and 'Project description,' adding minimal value beyond the schema's titles and types. No constraints, formats, uniqueness rules, or optionality details are provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new project in EasyPanel.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_service, create_network, and create_domain by naming the exact entity being created.

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 implies usage through the imperative 'Create a new project,' but it does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer the appropriate selection context from the tool name and sibling list.

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