typst_create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that files are optional and a compiler version can be pinned, but omits critical context: whether authentication is required (a typst_auth_login sibling exists), what happens on duplicate project names, what the call returns, and whether creation is reversible.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; every clause contributes to what the tool creates and what optional inputs it accepts.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It should at least mention authentication requirements and expected return behavior; as written, an agent would have to infer these from sibling tools or trial and error.

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 all five parameters are already documented. The description only restates the optional files and pinned compiler version, adding no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema, 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 specific verb and resource — 'Create a new project' — and names the platform, which is enough to distinguish it from list, get, and delete siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with an alternative, but no sibling offers competing creation semantics, so the purpose is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as authentication, and no exclusions or edge-case conditions. Usage is implied by the name alone rather than explained.

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