create_project

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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as requiring parent_directory within allowed folders and creating multiple files. Annotations are minimal, so description carries burden. It does not mention potential idempotency or overwrite behavior, but is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections for args and returns, and front-loaded with purpose. At about 150 words, it is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 adequately covers what the tool does, inputs, outputs (including return fields), and constraints. Given the complexity, it is complete and does not require additional context from siblings or output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including constraints, defaults, and usage context (e.g., project_name used for folder/target/scheme, platform case-insensitive). This adds significant value 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 Xcode project with a SwiftUI app template, specifying verb, resource, and details like Xcode 16+ format. It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on building, cleaning, or running projects.

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 provides parameter details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of siblings implies it is for creation, but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions.

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