create_project

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (mutation). The description adds that the directory is created if missing and specifies the exact files created, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 short and to the point, with two clear sentences and a simple argument list. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., numbered steps or clarification of return), but it is not verbose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core action, files created, and parameter roles, making it sufficiently complete for a project creation tool.

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 description adds some meaning to parameters: 'directory' can be created if missing, and 'name' is used for filenames. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description should offer more detail, such as naming conventions or path restrictions.

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 states the action ('Create'), the resource ('a KiCad 9 project'), and the specific file types generated (.kicad_pro, .kicad_prl, .kicad_sch). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'create_schematic' which create only schematic files.

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 implies the tool is used to start a new project, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before creating schematics), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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