scratchjr_create_project

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly=false/destructive=false annotations by disclosing that the project is persisted and opened, not just created in memory, and that construction of characters/backgrounds/text/scripts is automatic. It also states the return value (new ID and data), though it omits failure conditions or prerequisites like connectivity.

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-load the action, resource, constraint, and return value. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler, repetition of schema structure, or redundant restating of annotations.

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 complex tool with a deeply nested schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing high-level context: single-call creation, persistence, opening, automatic assembly, the four-page cap, and the returned ID/data. It omits explicit prerequisites such as connecting first or ensuring asset IDs exist, though the schema's asset description already points to scratchjr_list_assets.

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?

With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description carries some burden, and it helps by framing `project` as high-level content that the tool assembles into a native project with up to four pages. It does not walk through required fields or nested block semantics, but the schema itself is unusually detailed with defaults, enums, and constraints, so most operational meaning is available there.

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 names a specific action (create/persist/open), a clear resource (a complete native ScratchJr project), and key constraints ('up to four pages', auto-built characters/backgrounds/text/scripts). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like scratchjr_edit_project or scratchjr_list_projects, though it never explicitly names them.

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 verb 'Create' and 'Returns the new ID' imply this should be used when building a new project rather than editing or opening an existing one. However, the description gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against scratchjr_edit_project, scratchjr_save_project, and scratchjr_open_project.

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