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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals key behaviors: the project starts EMPTY, the result renders a live preview card, includes a first-build playbook, and initial_prompt is preserved and served back as <project-instructions>. It also warns not to paraphrase initial_prompt. These are meaningful operational details that an agent needs to know, and none contradict the annotations.

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?

Three sentences carry a lot: purpose, a critical parameter requirement, and post-creation workflow. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds necessary context. No filler or redundancy. Slightly dense but appropriate for the complexity.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return value (id), side effects (live preview card, empty project), and follow-up actions. It also clarifies the role of initial_prompt in the broader system. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and know what to expect. No output schema means the description must explain the result, which it does.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning for initial_prompt: it explains it must be the USER'S ORIGINAL REQUEST verbatim, that it grounds the project and is served back in list_files, and instructs not to paraphrase it. This goes well beyond the schema description. For the 'name' parameter, the description does not add anything, but the schema does not document it either; however, a project name is self-explanatory. The description compensates for the schema gap on the critical parameter.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new Floot project... and return its id.' It also specifies the pre-seeded component library, distinguishing it from any other creation tools like create_checkpoint. The purpose is immediately understandable and unique among the 45 siblings.

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 gives explicit post-creation workflow guidance: 'a session normally continues straight into get_guides("design") and the first page rather than ending at the card.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate (starting a new project) and what to do next. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, though none exist among siblings for project creation, so the guidance is sufficient.

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