godot_create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating folders and setting a display name, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing projects, error handling, or what happens if Godot isn't installed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('Create a new Godot project') and lists additional outcomes. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured by separating key actions for clarity.

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 complexity of creating a project (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error cases, or what the tool returns, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'folder_name' relates to 'project_name'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create a new Godot project') and the resources involved ('common folders', 'project display name'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'godot_create_folder' or 'godot_create_scene', which would require more specificity about what makes this tool unique for project creation versus folder/scene creation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing Godot installed or when to choose this over other creation tools like 'godot_create_folder' or 'godot_create_scene', leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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