new_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the initial state (empty, default layer 0, no entities), which is useful, but omits critical side-effect information: whether it replaces the currently active project, whether unsaved work is discarded, or what happens if a project name already exists.

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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and initial state, with the optional parameter noted at the end. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple project-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and initial state. However, it leaves important behavioral questions unanswered (e.g., whether it discards current work, switches the active project, or returns a handle), which an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It does identify the parameter as an 'optional project name,' which is helpful, but provides no further constraints, format expectations, or examples.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Start a new empty CAD project') and immediately defines the initial state ('default layer 0, no entities'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like open_project or load_project, which deal with existing projects.

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 'Start a new empty CAD project' implies the usage context (beginning from scratch), but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus open_project, load_project, or save_project. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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