Создание проекта

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value on top: it lists exactly which files get written and clarifies the blast radius — the current server project is not modified. It still omits any mention of the overwrite parameter's destructive effect.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading what is created before the use-case note. Efficient and well-structured, though it spends words on generated files while leaving key parameters unexplained.

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 7-parameter destructive scaffolding tool with no output schema, the description covers the produced artifacts and the safe scoping well, but it is incomplete on parameter behavior (notably overwrite) and renderer/physics/scene-type choices.

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 only 43%, so four of seven parameters (renderer, overwrite, physics_2d, main_scene_type) are undocumented in the schema. The description explains none of them, leaving the agent without guidance on the destructive overwrite flag or the enum choices.

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 ('Создаёт новый Godot 4 проект') and enumerates the concrete artifacts generated (project.godot, .gitignore, main.tscn, player script, directories). It also implicitly separates itself from sibling tools by noting the current server project is untouched, though it never names a specific sibling.

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?

'Используйте для старта с нуля' gives a clear use context, and the trailing clause clarifies the non-effect on the running server project. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named.

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