we_project_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds genuine side-effect context beyond that: copies strip workshopid, and scene copies remain unverified — meaningful post-conditions an agent would not otherwise know.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads and the copy caveats follow. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it does convey.

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?

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 5-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coverage and a nested object, the description omits how to choose between templateId and sourceProjectId and what name/title/properties control — a real gap for correct invocation.

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% and there are 5 parameters including a nested free-form 'properties' object, so the description must carry the load. It only obliquely touches the source (sourceProjectId) and template ('Web starfield' ~ templateId), leaving 'name' vs 'title' and the entire 'properties' bag undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (Create/Create offline) plus the resource (Web starfield project) and a second mode (copy an existing source), which distinguishes it from sibling read/apply/validate tools. The only weakness is jargon ('offline Web starfield', 'managed workspace') that isn't defined, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 implicitly signals two modes (new creation vs copying an existing source) but never states when to pick one over the other or how that maps to inputs. No alternatives or siblings are named, and no prerequisites are given, so usage must be inferred from the schema rather than the text.

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