generate_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the default is a non-destructive preview, that write touches disk under '<directory>/<name>', and that existing files are never overwritten without force. This provides crucial side-effect information, though it does not cover auth requirements or error states.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and covers all key behaviors (preview, write, force, prerequisite) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

The description addresses the main behaviors, including the preview return payload (file tree, stack summary, deployment contract). However, it does not state what the write mode returns or how config/preset interactions work in detail, leaving some gaps for a 7-param tool with no output schema. Overall it is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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?

The schema already covers all 7 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by linking 'write: true' to the path '<directory>/<name>' and by indicating that preset/config come from list_presets/get_generator_schema. This enriches the schema with contextual usage that helps the agent choose and set parameters correctly.

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 clearly identifies the action: 'Generate a project with a generator,' and distinguishes it from sibling tools that list or inspect (list_generators, get_generator_schema, plan_upgrade). It also states the key modes (preview vs write), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

The description explicitly advises 'Call list_presets / get_generator_schema first,' establishing a clear sequence. It explains when to use the default preview mode versus write:true, but it does not discuss when to use plan_upgrade or other alternatives, leaving some room for guidance improvement.

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