ap_project_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the destructive consequence: 'Discards the current project WITHOUT prompting and without saving.' This is exactly the kind of critical behavioral trait an agent needs before invoking the tool. It also provides a clear mitigation: call ap_project_save first.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical warning follows immediately. Each sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fully complete. It explains the action, the destructive side effect, the lack of prompting, and the necessary precaution. An agent has everything required to decide whether and how to invoke the tool safely.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add regarding parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed. The description sensibly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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: 'Start a new, empty project.' It also distinguishes this from related project operations by noting it discards the current project, making it clear this is not ap_project_open or ap_project_save. The purpose is immediately understandable and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: use this when starting fresh and abandoning the current project. It also tells the agent to call ap_project_save first if the work matters, which is explicit when-to-use guidance for a destructive action. It does not explicitly contrast with ap_project_open, but the behavior described is sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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