Start a new theatrical lighting project by naming it, adding an optional description, and assigning group ownership for cues and scenes.
Create a new lighting project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Project name | |
| groupId | No | Group ID to own this project (optional, defaults to user's personal group) | |
| description | No | Project description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / groupIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Group ID to own this project (optional, defaults to user's personal group)",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions required, name uniqueness, what happens on duplicate names, what the call returns (e.g. new project ID), or default behavior beyond what the schema already states for groupId.
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?
A single front-loaded phrase with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but that under-specification is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.
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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what is returned, whether the name must be unique, and how it relates to bulk_create_projects. The schema covers inputs but nothing covers behavior.
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 name, groupId, and description, including the groupId default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the structured data provides, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 clear verb and resource ('Create a new lighting project'), which is unambiguous about the domain. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling bulk_create_projects or explain why a single-create exists alongside a bulk variant.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. a group must exist), and no routing to the obvious alternative bulk_create_projects. The agent must infer everything from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.