create_project

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. The description adds real context beyond that: the project starts empty and is persisted to the workspace, which an agent needs to know before chaining creation and drawing calls.

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 lines, front-loaded with the action and the storage location, then the format constraint the agent must satisfy, then the next-step pointer. No sentence is redundant or 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?

For a three-parameter creation tool with no output schema and non-destructive annotations, this covers purpose, naming constraint and follow-on workflow. The only gap is error/return behavior — what happens on a name collision or what the call yields — which is minor at this complexity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description pushes past it by supplying the naming rule for 'project' (1-40 lower-case letters, digits or '_', starting with a letter) that the schema only illustrates with an example. It adds nothing for 'kind' or 'description', which the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('Create an empty modelling project') plus where it lands ('saved in the workspace'), so an agent can distinguish it from list_projects or project_summary at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it must not be confused with, which keeps it just under a 5.

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?

Gives concrete sequencing guidance — 'Next: define_color, then add_part and the draw_* tools' — which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow and what comes after. It offers no exclusion or alternative path (e.g., what to do if the project already exists), so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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