new_project

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that filaments map to AMS slots in order, that names without '@...' are auto-matched, and that bed type is inherited from Bambu Studio settings — but it says nothing about side effects on the current project, permissions, or what the call returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in one sentence, and the filaments example earns its place by showing the exact object shape. The trailing sentence about bed type and set_setting is slightly tangential but remains relevant; there is little waste.

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 creation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the trickiest input (filaments) but leaves key gaps: printer/process semantics and what happens to the currently open project. Adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four parameters. It does this well for filaments (format, example, matching rule) but leaves printer (name vs. serial?), process (empty default meaning), and name undocumented, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Start an empty project.' An agent can tell this creates a new project rather than fetching or saving one. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling open_project, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus open_project, or of prerequisites such as whether an existing unsaved project is discarded. The only 'guidance' is the aside on changing bed type via set_setting, which is a parameter detail rather than usage guidance.

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