create_project

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Create' and gives no detail about filesystem side effects, whether an existing directory is overwritten, what files are generated, or failure modes. An agent cannot anticipate the full consequences of invoking this mutating 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'From scratch' adds useful scope without adding verbosity, making it appropriately concise for a tool with only two parameters.

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 tool is low-complexity and both parameters are fully covered by the schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it leaves significant gaps: no output schema, no side-effect disclosure, and no definition of what 'from scratch' means in terms of project initialization. An agent would need external knowledge to fully know what to expect.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions for projectPath and projectName, but those fields are already self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Godot project from scratch.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling creation tools like create_scene, create_script, and create_resource, which target different artifact types.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects, get_project_info, or modify_project_settings. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and description, with no exclusions or context about existing projects.

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