Project New

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does well by mentioning side effects: scaffolding a directory with specific files, adding a blank costume, creating goboscript.toml, and making the project active. It could add more about the active-project replacement behavior or reversibility, but the core mutation is clearly disclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence adds concrete scaffolding details without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple project-creation tool, the description covers what is created and that the new project becomes active. It has a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, so missing return-value details are not a gap. It could be slightly more complete with explicit alternative routing, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents path, git, and published_project_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable under the baseline because the schema fully compensates.

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 verb ('Create a new goboscript project'), the resource, and a key outcome ('make it the active project'). It also differentiates the tool from siblings like project_open and project_download by describing project creation and scaffolding rather than opening or downloading.

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 to create and activate a new goboscript project from scratch. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'new project' framing makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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