Creates an independent research project with its initial confirmed foundation, without inheriting demonstration records. Use it to start a clean project from a defined name, goal, and domain.
Create an independent project and its initial confirmed foundation; no demonstration records are inherited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| demo | No | ||
| goal | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| domain | No | ||
| projectId | No | ||
| requestId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world mutation semantics. The description adds the useful fact that no demo records are inherited, but it doesn't explain what 'confirmed foundation' means, what side effects occur, or how the optional 'demo' parameter interacts with that statement.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The terseness is efficient, though it contributes to the lack of explanatory detail.
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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It should at minimum explain the required requestId, name, and what happens when demo is true.
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% across six parameters, and the description explains none of them. Required requestId and name, plus optional demo, goal, domain, and projectId, are left entirely opaque; notably the 'demo' parameter appears to interact with the statement about demonstration records but is never clarified.
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 verb+resource pair 'Create an independent project' is clear, but 'initial confirmed foundation' and 'demonstration records are inherited' are unexplained domain jargon. It does not clearly differentiate this tool from siblings such as rws_project_list or rws_overview_propose beyond the word 'create'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about required requestId/name or idempotency behavior. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.