createProject

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the description carries real weight here and delivers: it explains style-preset inheritance, the auto-zoom planning side effect from the pointer track, and the two return values (projectId and a checkpointId that restores the project). This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the first sentence is a run-on with deeply nested parentheticals ('in the look new projects start with in OpenScreen (the style preset marked for them, else the last edited project's), as the editor's New does') that is difficult to parse. Content largely earns its place, but the structure and phrasing are needlessly unwieldy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the return values (projectId, checkpointId) and their meaning. It also covers the follow-up action and downstream visibility in the project list. The only gap is the phantom autoZooms parameter, which is neither in the schema nor reconciled with it.

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 100%, so both title and videoPath are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds mode context (video laid out as one clip) but then references 'autoZooms says how many' as if it were an input, which does not exist in the schema — a discrepancy that sows confusion rather than adding clarity.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Create a new project') and distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the two modes (empty vs. from a video) and by naming importMedia as the follow-on tool. The dense phrasing makes it harder to parse than it should be, but an agent can still tell what this tool does and how it differs from createCheckpoint or importMedia.

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?

It states the use case ('It is in the OpenScreen app's project list, so the user can open it in its editor') and explicitly names the alternative for the empty case ('Fill an empty one with importMedia'). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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