create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses units (centimetres, degrees), the coordinate system (y increasing downward), and the tool's limitations. It does not explicitly state overwrite behavior or error handling, but the provided constraints are substantial and non-obvious.

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?

Four concise, purposeful sentences with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, and the example invocation makes the primary calling pattern immediately clear.

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 description covers project creation, units, coordinate conventions, scope limitations, and a concrete example. Given the output schema exists and sibling tools cover additional elements, this is nearly complete; the main missing piece is explicit overwrite behavior when the target file already exists.

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%, and the description partially compensates by specifying units and giving an example that uses project_path, name, width, and height. However, it does not explain overwrite, wall_height, or wall_thickness beyond the general unit statement, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 action and resource: 'Create a .sh3d project.' It also clarifies scope by noting it does not create multi-level homes or add furniture, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_furniture and add_wall.

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: this is for creating a new project shell, optionally with a basic 4-wall rectangle footprint. It also tells the agent what not to expect, which implicitly routes furniture and multi-level work to other tools, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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