arcane_create_project

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a project is created, but does not mention side effects, the need for an existing environment, whether the compose file is validated, or whether it triggers a deployment. This is comparable to the 'update_drive' example where mutation side effects are undisclosed.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the verb and object. It is efficient in size and structure, though the brevity contributes to the lack of substantive 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?

The tool has 5 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description only provides a high-level action and omits critical contextual details such as how the compose file is used, the role of environmentId, and what the response contains. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.

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%, and the description names none of the five parameters. It provides no insight into the meaning or purpose of environmentId, name, composeFile, path, or gitRepoId. With such low schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not, failing to guide parameter selection.

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 Docker Compose project'). It is a specific verb+object description that distinguishes the tool from other create tools by specifying the resource type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like arcane_deploy_project or explain how this create differs from a deploy.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing environment), whether the created project is immediately deployed, or the relationship to arcane_deploy_project. The absence of any usage context leaves the agent without decision guidance.

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