create_arc_diagram_project

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'creates' a project, which implies a write operation, but it does not disclose that files are written to outputDirectory, that overwrite can replace existing scaffold-managed files, or what happens if the directory is non-empty. These are significant side effects for a no-annotation tool.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core action and input, then efficiently lists the key output features. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 schema is rich and covers parameter-level semantics, but the description does not explain the full workflow, such as validating DiagramDef objects first or the file-system impact of the operation. For a complex project-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some important operational context to be inferred.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'validated' qualifier for DiagramDef objects, which is useful, but it does not otherwise enrich the meaning of title, diagrams, overwrite, or outputDirectory beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific action ('Create'), a specific resource ('interactive React Flow arc-diagram project'), and the input type ('validated DiagramDef objects'). It also names concrete output features, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that list dialects, get contracts, and validate sets.

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 description implies the tool should be used after validation by saying 'from validated DiagramDef objects', and the sibling validate_arc_diagram_set reinforces that. However, it never explicitly says 'validate first' or names alternatives/exclusions, so the guidance is more implied than stated.

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