aia_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must stand alone for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the mutation (create), the resulting state (empty project with Screen1), and an important sanitization side effect ('Name is sanitized to letters/digits/underscore'). It does not say what happens if the path already exists, which is a minor gap for a creation tool.

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 one sentence that packs the core action, the resulting scope, and the name constraint into a single, properly front-loaded statement. Every clause earns its place, with no filler.

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 no output schema and no available annotations, the description gives an agent the primary creation expectations: a new project file is created, with exactly one Screen1, and the provided name will be sanitized. It is slightly incomplete around overwriting or existing paths, but is otherwise sufficient for a simple two-parameter 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 schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra semantics by explaining project_name is sanitized and that the project starts with Screen1, which helps an agent reason about allowed project names without inspecting behavior. It does not add deeper meaning to path, but the schema already defines it adequately as an absolute or relative .aia file path.

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 names a specific verb-create-plus-resource, 'Create a new empty .aia project', and adds the key initialization detail 'with a Screen1'. It is also clearly distinct from sibling tools like aia_add_screen or aia_inspect, so an agent knows exactly what this operation produces.

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 intended use is clear: call this when starting a brand-new project at a given .aia path. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as pointing to aia_add_screen for adding extra screens, but the context of creating an empty project with Screen1 is unambiguous.

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