create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it creates a project, but does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., overwrite behavior), or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 is too brief given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not explain what 'minimal' means, what files are created, return values, or error scenarios. For a tool that modifies the file system, more context is needed.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'directory' and the concept of a project, but does not explicitly describe the 'name' parameter or clarify the relationship between parameters. The agent must infer the meaning of 'name' from context.

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 states the action (Create), the resource (KiCad project), and adds specificity with 'minimal' and location constraints ('under directory (within roots)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or get_project_info.

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 description defines the tool's purpose but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Since there is no other create project tool among siblings, the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable but not optimal.

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