pvsyst_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: content-preservation guarantees (BOM/newlines/references), rejection rules (existing same-prefix members, duplicate normalized IDs), partial-failure semantics ('handled write errors remove only created files'), and validation scope limits ('checks envelopes and subarray sections, not full schema or physical validity'). This is exactly the mutation-risk disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints and guarantees in descending priority. Dense and largely waste-free, though a few clauses are telegraphic ('Site/meteo/components remain external') and would read better split out.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully closes that gap with 'Returns the member hash map.' It also bounds scope and names next steps. Minor gaps remain: the meaning of the 'project' argument and where the created files land are not stated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well for two of three: 'variants maps VC identifiers to their full text; 1..127 variants' and project_content as complete UTF-8 text. The 'project' parameter is only obliquely characterized through 'same-prefix,' leaving its role (name/prefix) partly inferential.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a NEW PRJ/VC set from complete UTF-8 text without an existing project.' The precondition ('without an existing project') plus the bracketed domain tag distinguishes it from pvsyst_open_native_project, pvsyst_clone_project, and pvsyst_prepare_design_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?

Gives a clear applicability condition (no existing project; caller supplies full text) and names the follow-up path: 'inspect, validate and simulate the new project.' It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for the contrasting case (e.g., clone/open when a project already exists), so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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