new_project

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation already flags this as a mutating operation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it returns the folder path and tells the agent to edit page.html while preserving the look. It does not disclose whether an existing folder is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or that brand data is written to brand.js (only the schema says that).

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 3-parameter tool with a nested brand object and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: it creates the scaffold and it returns the folder, so return-value burden is partly carried. The remaining gap is the absence of any mention of the optional brand subtree or overwrite behavior, but the schema handles the former.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `style` (name, alias or menu number) and `project` (folder name under /root/anim-styles-projects or absolute path) plus the promo-only `brand` object. The description adds no additional meaning about any parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Start a project from a look's working starter page', which tells an agent this scaffolds a new project rather than listing styles or rendering. It is implicitly distinguishable from all siblings, but it never names a sibling or the style-selection tools an agent would use to supply the `style` argument.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Start a project' - this is the entry point of the workflow - and the follow-up instruction ('edit page.html there') gives the next step. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g., resolve the look via get_style/list_styles first), and no statement about what happens if the project folder already exists.

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