create_project

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, which are minimal. The description adds value by disclosing that the operation runs as a job (asynchronous) and requires confirm=true, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 fluff. The first sentence establishes the core action and async nature, the second adds parameter guidance. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, async nature, and key parameter notes. Missing prerequisites (e.g., Unity installed, hub running) are minor gaps in this context.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaning for 'version' (optional, defaults to newest installed) and 'confirm' (must be true), but does not explain 'project_path' format or restrictions, leaving a gap.

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 ('creates'), resource ('new, empty Unity project'), and method ('Unity.exe -createProject' as a job). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_folder' and 'open_create_project_ui' by clarifying that this creates the actual project via the editor executable.

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 provides clear context for the 'version' parameter (optional, defaults to newest) and states that 'confirm=true' is necessary. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the unique purpose makes this somewhat implicit.

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