create_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action but doesn't mention side effects such as whether existing projects are closed, whether any default templates apply, or if the project is opened after creation. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Creates a new Adobe Premiere Pro project') followed by usage context. There is zero waste – every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with only two required parameters and no nested objects or output schema. The description is sufficient for understanding the basic function, but for a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from explaining typical consequences (e.g., does it automatically open the project? Are there any prerequisites?). It is minimally complete.

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%, meaning the schema already explains both 'name' and 'location'. The description adds no extra semantic meaning; it only reiterates the purpose. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers everything, and description doesn't need to add much, but also doesn't add anything beyond the 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 clearly states the tool creates a new Adobe Premiere Pro project, which is a specific and unambiguous action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'open_project' and 'save_project', but doesn't explicitly contrast with them, preventing a perfect score.

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?

It implies use when starting a new project from scratch, which is clear enough. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'open_project' or 'create_sequence', leaving some ambiguity for agents considering related tools.

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