vibemap_create_project

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It does not mention any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or conflict handling. For a creation tool, it's adequate but lacks detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds information (action, usage context, next step) with no 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 description covers creation and the next step. It mentions returning a project ID implicitly. Without an output schema, the return format is not detailed, but the tool is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by saying 'The more detail, the better the AI analysis' for the description parameter, which helps the agent understand its importance.

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 'Create a new VibeMap project' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the workflow: after creation, call vibemap_analyze_codebase.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when starting from an existing codebase' and gives the next step ('then call vibemap_analyze_codebase with the returned project ID'). While it doesn't state when not to use, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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