create_project_from_template

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it clones the 'opaque PLC setup/I/O/unit configuration' and 'blanks only the program surfaces.' It also notes the optional immediate .CXT save. However, it does not explicitly disclose overwrite semantics for output_path, which is relevant given the destructiveHint flag.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. There is no repetition of the schema or 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?

Given the 8-parameter creation tool with no schema descriptions, the description covers the key decision (template_id vs template_path), the cloning result, the blanking behavior, and optional saving. Output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required; the only notable gap is overwrite behavior, which the parameter name and default mitigate.

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. It meaningfully explains template_id vs template_path and implies output_path via the optional .CXT save. The remaining parameters (plc_name, project_name, program_name, section_name, overwrite) are left to their names and defaults, which are fairly self-explanatory but not described.

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 opens with 'Create a new offline CX-Programmer project session from a native CXT/CXP template' — a specific verb, resource, and source. It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like load_project, save_cxt, and list_project_templates.

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 gives explicit guidance: use a bundled template_id for supported CPUs, and use template_path for maximum fidelity with another CPU/release. This is a clear when-to-use-which-alternative explanation, not just a restatement of the tool's purpose.

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