create_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create', which implies non-destructive action, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether the current project is closed, if auto-save occurs, or if it modifies the application state permanently). The description is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's full impact.

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 sentence of six words, front-loading the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place for this straightforward action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic action but leaves critical gaps: it does not explain what happens when 'name' is omitted, whether a file is created/saved, or how this interacts with the current application state. A more complete description would clarify these behavioral details.

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?

Input schema has 1 parameter ('name') with description 'Optional project name', providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline score of 3 applies because schema coverage is high and the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'a new After Effects project'. It directly conveys the core action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on compositions or layers. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other creation tools like 'create_composition' or 'import_footage', leaving room for ambiguity about the scope of 'project'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., open_project, save_project, import_footage). The tool name suggests it should be used to start a new project, but the description does not clarify prerequisites, typical workflow position, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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