Create project

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

Annotations already declare the write, non-idempotent, open-world nature. The description adds useful context: it returns the new project ID and can create from a template, but it doesn't mention permissions or error behavior beyond that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by how to supply optional parameters. No wasted words.

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 four parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description provides enough: it clarifies return value (project ID) and how to obtain template and team_id. It doesn't cover failure modes, but annotations cover safety.

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 coverage is 75%, with team_id, template, and template_version documented. The description adds meaning by linking team_id to typst_whoami and template to typst_search_templates, though the required 'name' parameter is left to the schema.

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 project'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like duplicate_project and update_project by specifying creation and noting the empty-or-template option.

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?

It explicitly guides the agent to use typst_search_templates to find a template and typst_whoami to get team_id. It doesn't state when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives like duplicate_project, but the context is clear.

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