project_create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context by confirming existing directories and media are preserved. However, it does not say what happens when a project already exists at projectDir (error, merge, overwrite) or what the tool returns, leaving the main behavioral ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second sentence could have been spent on more valuable routing or parameter information.

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?

This is a creation tool with a large nested configuration schema, no output schema, and no explanation of defaults or resolution/fps implications. Given the complexity and low schema coverage, the description is too thin — an agent cannot infer how width/height/fps or the audio block affect the created project.

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 only 17% across 6 top-level parameters plus a deeply nested audio object (denoise, ducking, targetLufs, truePeakDb, gain fields). The description mentions no parameters at all — not fps, width/height, or any audio option — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. Only projectDir and a few audio sub-fields carry schema descriptions.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create a new local headless video project'), which is clear and distinguishable from read-only siblings like project_inspect or project_validate. It does not explicitly contrast with project_open_bundle or project_import_legacy, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus project_open_bundle, project_import_legacy, or project_bundle. No prerequisites (existing directory, permissions) or exclusions are stated; the only contextual sentence covers preservation behavior, not tool selection.

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