Create project

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds specific destructive context: 'Overwrites the manifest of an existing package at that path.' This is useful beyond the boolean hint. It also discloses the optional background behavior, though it does not detail other side effects such as file preservation or return values.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences cover the core action, an optional behavior, and the destructive edge case. Every sentence adds distinct information with no filler.

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?

The description is largely complete for an agent to understand what action will be performed Duff, especially with annotations and schema fields covering constraints. The main gaps are lack of explicit return-value information and no mention of what happens to other existing files besides the manifest, but these are minor given the schema and annotations.

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 60%, and the description only substantively adds meaning for the background parameter by calling it a 'solid background layer.' Width and height have no description in the schema or the tool description, leaving their units and exact purpose implied rather than explicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Creates a new empty .comp project.' It also clarifies optional behavior (adding a background layer) and the overwrite behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like replace_layer_image or export_flattened.

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 clearly implies the tool is for creating a new project or resetting/initializing one at a path. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance.

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