project_create

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

Annotations provide a baseline (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description confirms the mutating nature by saying 'Create'. It adds the behavioral context that the project is 'minimal' and 'native-authored', which hints at the scope and format of what is created. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether an existing project at the path is overwritten) or any required permissions.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the verb 'Create' and immediately identifies the resource and purpose. Every word contributes meaning, making it an example of concise and well-structured documentation.

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?

Even though the tool is simple (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description fails to explain the key parameter 'path', which is required. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool without knowing what path should contain. The description is too minimal to be considered complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'path' or 'name' at all, leaving the agent to infer what these mean. The only clue is the word 'Project', but the required 'path' parameter is not clarified, which is a significant gap.

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 minimal native-authored Garment Project'), with the qualifier 'for drafting from scratch' that distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_import and project_open. It is specific and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'for drafting from scratch' provides clear context for when to use this tool—when starting a new project from an empty state. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, such as using project_import to bring in an existing project, which would strengthen the guidance.

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