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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not open-world). The description goes well beyond: it discloses that projects are pre-seeded with a shared component library, that initial_prompt becomes an editable system prompt on disk, that it is served back as <project-instructions>, that a preview card renders, and critically that a fresh project is EMPTY until pages are written.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return value in the first clause, then layers the prompt semantics and workflow guidance. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; the closing playbook sentence is long yet genuinely actionable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return burden and does so (id plus live preview card). Combined with the prompt-grounding and empty-project details, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and know what to do next.

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 50% (only initial_prompt is documented). The description compensates strongly for that parameter — it explains what the prompt should contain (app purpose and audience, preserving user wording), where it is stored, and how it grounds the project — though the `name` parameter remains unexplained beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Create a new Floot project') and immediately distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects by naming the returned artifact (the id) and the pre-seeding behavior.

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?

Explains the workflow context — a session normally continues into get_guides("design") and writing the first page rather than ending at the preview card. It gives clear when-to-use context but does not spell out when NOT to create a project or name a specific alternative tool.

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