create_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a high-level outcome ('proper structure and configuration') without detailing side effects, permission requirements, file creation behavior, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely has significant impact.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise but could be more structured by front-loading key points. It earns a 4 for being efficient while slightly sacrificing informativeness.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not clarify what 'proper structure and configuration' means, nor does it address potential failures or outcomes. For a creation tool, this lack of detail leaves significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the interplay of parameters (e.g., how 'template' relates to 'from scratch'). Meets minimum expectations but adds no extra value.

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 clearly states the tool creates a complete Godot project from scratch. It is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like create_project_from_template, which may cause confusion since the schema includes a template parameter. Overall purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project_from_template, create_project_with_assets, or scaffold_project_structure. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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