Create a MAX+plus II project

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it previews by default, refuses existing directories, creates an isolated directory, and sets END_TIME=0.0ns. It does not cover authorization or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the creation action and artifact, and the second quickly covers default preview, refusal behavior, and the one-directory-per-design rule.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the key novel behaviors: preview default, refusal on existing directories, and the one-design-per-directory constraint. It could still say more about the non-idempotent nature or how the preview result should be consumed, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, including confirm, encoding, directory, workspace, device, and sourceExtension. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning (optional HDL source, isolated directory) and mentions END_TIME=0.0ns, which is not a parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and the resource (an isolated directory with a named CHIP .acf, optional HDL source) and mentions a constraint (END_TIME=0.0ns). It clearly tells the agent what artifact is produced, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling creation tools like project_clone or project_restore_file.

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 behavioral context — preview by default, refuse existing directories, one directory per design — which implies how to use the tool. However, it does not state when to choose project_create over alternatives such as project_clone or project_restore_file, so the guidance is only partial.

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