create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses key behaviors: creating a folder in the working directory, automatic numbering on name conflicts, writing two agent-handoff files, and returning the folder name as the project id. It does not mention error handling or permission requirements, but the core side effects are clearly stated.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with the conflict-resolution rule, file creation, and return value. No filler words; every clause adds necessary information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by explicitly stating the return value and folder behavior. It covers conflict handling and file creation, which are the key edge cases for a creation tool. Minor gaps like what happens on invalid paths or directory creation failures do not undermine the essential completeness for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema: it reveals that 'name' is slugified to produce the folder name, and implicitly explains the default directory behavior mentioned in the dir parameter. This extra insight raises the score to 4.

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 verb and resource: '创建新项目' (create new project), and details what it does: create a self-contained folder named after a slug of the project name, write AGENTS.md/CLAUDE.md, and return the project id. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like import_project or list_projects.

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 usage for starting a new project and mentions cold-start handoff for any agent, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., import_project) or provide any exclusions. The usage context is inferable, not explicit.

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