project_create

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose genuine behavioral traits: input files remain read-only, paths resolve against the workspace root, and the result is a draft with entries/doors populated only later. It omits failure behavior, overwrite semantics for an existing config_path, and any permission requirements for a 7-required-parameter mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by constraints. Little waste, though 'URP/Input System/Pipeline' stacks jargon that could be stated more plainly.

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 tool with 7 required parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far too thin — most required inputs are unexplained. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the input and behavioral gaps remain large.

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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It loosely maps 'saved SKPs' to sources and 'Unity project' to unity_project, but says nothing about config_path, python_executable, unity_cli, native_library, font, ground_elevation, or title.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Create a new draft config from saved SKPs.' The word 'draft' usefully distinguishes the output from a finished config. It never names or contrasts with the sibling config_save/config_read, so the agent gets no explicit disambiguation.

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?

'Provide an existing URP/Input System/Pipeline Unity project' states a prerequisite, and 'Entries/doors are filled after inventory' implies a sequencing relationship with inventory_query. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus config_save, no statement of what to do if a config already exists, and no named alternatives.

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