Create new project

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the confirm and backup behavior on existing files, and the path constraint. This goes beyond what annotations convey, though it could mention post-creation state.

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, each providing essential information: the core action and conditions. No redundant or verbose phrasing. The information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 covers key aspects (creation, confirm, backup, path) but lacks details on post-creation behavior (e.g., whether project opens automatically) and error handling (e.g., what happens if path is not allowed). With no output schema, this gap somewhat hinders complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are described. The description adds extra context: path must be inside an allowed working root and extension is added if missing. This augments the schema without contradicting it.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Create a new empty .prproj project at the given absolute path.' The verb 'create' and the resource '.prproj project' are specific, distinguishing it from siblings like 'premiere_open_project' (opens existing) and 'premiere_save_project' (saves current).

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 context for when to use (creating a new project) and conditions (path constraints, confirm on overwrite, backup). However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.

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