proj_create_variant

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully implies the new variant does NOT become active automatically (you must call proj_set_active_variant), which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure. However it omits failure modes, duplicate-name handling, and permission/project-open prerequisites for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the action, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose (workflow guidance, param meaning, return). Slightly verbose versus a single terse sentence, but 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?

An output schema exists, so explaining the return dictionary is technically redundant but harmless. Params are fully covered and the post-creation workflow is mapped. Missing only edge-case behavior (name collisions, prerequisites) for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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, and it largely does: all three params are described, including the important default that project_path=None uses the active project and that description is optional. Nothing about format nuances is added, but semantics are covered.

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 project variant.' Unambiguously distinguishes itself from the surrounding variant tools (proj_list_variants, proj_delete_variant, proj_set_active_variant) which are explicitly named elsewhere in the description as follow-ups.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: create, then proj_set_active_variant to switch, then obj_modify to configure component variations. This tells the agent the correct sequence. No explicit exclusion or 'when not to use' guidance (e.g., vs proj_create), but the follow-up routing is genuinely helpful.

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