Generate VULK Project (Legacy)

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

Annotations already provide safety hints (non-readonly, non-destructive). The description adds the behavioral trait of being a legacy alias, which is useful for deprecation awareness. However, no additional details about side effects, permissions, or response format are given, relying on the underlying create_project behavior.

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 a single sentence that is direct and non-redundant. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 legacy alias tool, the description adequately communicates its deprecation status and directs to alternatives. It does not explain return values or behavior in detail, but as an alias, that is acceptable. A reference to the create_project description could improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully describes the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a legacy alias for create_project, specifying its purpose of generating a VULK project. It distinguishes from siblings by naming preferred alternatives, but could be more explicit about what the tool does beyond being an alias.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly states that it is a legacy alias and advises to prefer create_project or generate_immersive_site in new clients. This directly helps the agent decide when not to use this tool and which alternatives to choose.

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