New project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the empty-state nature and the required ordering, but does not say what happens if a project is already open (replace vs. error) or what the call returns. That gap is significant for a state-creating tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the format enumeration, then the sequencing constraint. No filler.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers format and sequencing well but omits behavior on an already-open project and most parameter meanings. Adequate but with clear 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 coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the most important parameter, format, with concrete id values, but leaves name, box_uv, texture_width, and texture_height entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource ("Create a new empty Blockbench project") and implicitly distinguishes itself from bb_open_model by naming it as the alternate entry point. An agent can tell it apart from sibling creation tools.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use rule ("Always call this ... before building, unless a project is already open") and names the alternative (bb_open_model). Nothing about sequencing is left to inference.

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