pencil2d_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully signals that the result is a 'blank' project in .pclx format, but it says nothing about overwrite behavior if project_path exists, whether directories are auto-created, what file system permissions are needed, or what happens on failure.

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 sentence with no filler; the core action and the configurable surface are both stated immediately.

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 file-creating mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out what the call returns (e.g., the created path or a project handle) and the overwrite semantics. The parameter surface itself is fully covered by the schema, so the remaining gaps are moderate rather than severe.

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 coverage is 100%, so defaults for fps, width, height, and layer_names are already documented in the schema. The description mirrors those fields (resolution, FPS, layers) without adding format details such as typical aspect ratios or valid FPS ranges, so it sits at the baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 ('Create') and a precise resource ('new blank Pencil2D project (.pclx)') and names the configurable dimensions (resolution, FPS, layers), so an agent immediately knows what the tool produces. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from siblings like pencil2d_launch_gui or pencil2d_add_layer, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., creating a project before adding frames/layers, or launching the GUI instead). No preconditions are stated either, such as whether project_path must not already exist or whether parent directories are created.

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