proj_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether an existing file at project_path is overwritten, whether parent directories are created, whether the new project is opened automatically, or what permissions/errors may occur, leaving the mutation semantics underspecified.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and directly states the action. The Args and Returns sections are compact and relevant, though the docstring formatting is slightly mechanical and the extension list is somewhat open-ended.

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 two-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers invocation basics and return shape adequately. It still lacks behavioral details around overwrite behavior and side effects, but the core call requirements are understandable.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so well: project_path is described as the full path for the new project file with extension examples, and project_type enumerates PCB, IntegratedLibrary, and ScriptProject with meanings.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Altium project.' It is clearly distinguished from project-opening siblings such as proj_open, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Create a new Altium project,' and the project_type list gives context for choosing among project kinds. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus proj_open, app_create_document, or other project setup tools, nor any prerequisites.

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