create_project

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

There are no annotations to provide safety or side-effect hints, so the description carries full responsibility. However, it only states the core action and does not disclose return values, potential errors, idempotency, or any side effects beyond 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the description covers its basic purpose. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or any post-condition. Given the lack of annotations and minimal context, some crucial behavioral details are missing, but the low complexity prevents a lower score.

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?

The schema fully describes the 'title' parameter ('Title of the new project'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, but since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new Stitch project'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_projects, edit_screen, and generate_screen since none of those create a project.

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. Sibling tools like scaffold_project_files might overlap conceptually, but the description offers no context or exclusions to help the agent choose.

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