bootstrap_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints that output is a 'draft' bound to a source, but says nothing about what happens if project_dir already exists, what the force flag overwrites/destroys, or what permissions or side effects are involved in a write operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the deliverable, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but for a three-parameter write tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the force semantics, directory-collision behavior, and prerequisite workflow undocumented.

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% and the description only loosely gestures at 'source' and the project pack. The 'force' parameter, which is the riskiest to use incorrectly, is not explained anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

Specific verb ('Create') plus a specific resource ('source-bound draft project pack') with a scoping constraint ('one previously inspected DWG'). It does not name or differentiate from plausible siblings like prepare_cad_bundle_workspace or inspect_source, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'previously inspected DWG' implies a prerequisite (run inspect_source first) but never states it explicitly, and there is no guidance on when to use this versus prepare_cad_bundle_workspace or how it fits the wider workflow.

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