new_project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a mutating setup operation, it starts a session, and it creates no decision authority. This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies side-effect scope, though it does not discuss prerequisites, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the operation category, states the concrete action, and closes with a non-obvious scope boundary about decisions and authority. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no filler.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and behavioral boundary well. However, with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the lack of parameter guidance and absence of usage differentiation leaves notable gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides no parameter-specific explanation. It does not clarify project_name, project_path, mode, project_id, or description beyond what the schema's property names already suggest, so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Mutating setup operation' that creates a project and starts its Design Flow session, giving a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from decision-making siblings by stating it 'invents no decisions and creates no decision authority,' though it does not explicitly contrast with related tools like resume_project or import_draft.

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 implies the tool is for new project setup and starting a session, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over resume_project, import_draft, or other sibling alternatives. There is clear contextual framing but no direct when/when-not guidance or named exclusions.

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