create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect well — a new tab is created and the current project's unsaved state is preserved — but is silent on whether the new project exists on disk, what the name parameter governs, or what is returned.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the tab-creation and state-preservation behavior front-loaded ahead of parameter details.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and inputs. It handles the state-safety question but leaves the name parameter and the time-signature format undocumented, which for a 0%-coverage schema is a real gap.

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. It names two of the three parameters (tempo, time signature) and their purpose but gives no format detail for time_signature (e.g. '4/4' string form), and the name parameter is never explained.

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?

Specific verb+resource: creates a new REAPER project with a defined tempo and time signature, in a new project tab. It implicitly distinguishes itself from load_project by stating a new tab is created rather than an existing project opened, though no sibling is named outright.

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 clause 'the current project stays open, unsaved changes included' implies this is the non-destructive path versus loading or overwriting, but the description never says when to use this versus load_project or save_project. Usage must be inferred.

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