创建抖音小游戏工程（仅小游戏）

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually detailed. It discloses the CDP DOM-based UI automation approach, prohibits screenshot coordinate clicks, states forced project options, describes non-empty directory rejection, and documents the CREATE_PROJECT_UI_UNSUPPORTED error plus a unique manual operation. This exceeds the typical level of behavioral disclosure.

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 dense and information-rich; every clause contributes a real constraint or behavior. It could be slightly better organized with separate sentences or bullets, but it is concise relative to the amount of behavioral detail it conveys.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, important invocation details are missing: there is no description of the success return value, the role of appid, projectName, or timeoutMs, or how the forced language/template values interact with the schema enums. The error code and post-creation identity verification are helpful, but they do not make the tool fully actionable without guesswork.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for six parameters. It gives useful semantics for projectPath via the non-empty directory rejection and effectively constrains language and template to javascript/empty, but it does not explain the required appid, projectName, or timeoutMs. It also leaves unclear whether passing typescript or rich triggers rejection or silent coercion.

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: creating a Douyin minigame project through the IDE startup page's real "minigame" entry. The scope "仅小游戏" and the creation focus clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like douyin_open_project or douyin_tmg_open.

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 provides clear context by stating this tool is for creating minigame projects and by specifying constraints such as '强制 JavaScript + 空白模板 + 小游戏类型' and '目标目录非空默认拒绝'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer this tool over siblings, so usage guidance is present but mainly implied.

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