project_new

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious side effect: the project path is stored and later tools automatically target this project. It also clarifies profile override behavior. It does not mention overwrite behavior, but the core state change is covered.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, one key behavioral effect, then a clean Args list. No filler. The repeated 'ignored when profile is set' is slightly repetitive but improves clarity.

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?

The description, alongside the output schema, gives an agent all needed information: how to create, what the path means, what profile choices exist, and how parameters interact. Since an output schema exists, return-value detail is not required.

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 0%, so the description must document every argument, and it does: output_path format, profile enum values, and the priority rule that profile overrides width/height/fps. This fully compensates for 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?

States the specific action 'Create a brand new Kdenlive project session', naming the resource and clarifying it is a new session, which distinguishes it from project_open and project_save.

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 phrase 'brand new' plus the explanation that the path becomes the target for subsequent tools gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name project_open for existing projects, but the new-vs-existing distinction is evident.

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