plan_project_creation

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 does not clarify whether this tool performs validation only (dry-run) or mutates state, even though parameter names like overwrite, replace_current, and overwrite_backup suggest mutation planning. Auth requirements, side effects, and whether a backup actually occurs are all undisclosed.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, but the comma-separated noun list is awkward and front-loads 'validate' rather than stating scope clearly. It is concise but at the cost of comprehension.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. The output schema relieves the need to explain return values, but the agent still lacks enough to know what this plans, what it validates, and how it relates to create_project.

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?

With 10 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate heavily but does not. It mentions 'import settings' and 'backup' loosely but never explains mesh_file_path, output_path, backup_mode, template_file_path, mesh_map_file_paths, or the overwrite flags.

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 lists activities ('validate a new project, typed import settings, context switch, and backup') which conveys that this is a planning/validation step rather than execution, but the phrasing is fragmentary and 'typed import settings' is opaque. It implies a distinction from create_project (plan vs. create) only through the name, not through explicit statement.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, despite create_project and get_project_creation_job being direct siblings. An agent must infer that 'plan' precedes creation, but nothing states this or explains exclusions.

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