armorpaint_new_project

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds concrete consequences: the current project is discarded and must be saved first. This goes beyond the bare destructiveHint flag, though it does not detail reversibility or effects on the undo stack.

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 and every clause earns its place: the first states the operation, the second gives the critical warning. No redundant or filler language.

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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the main operation and risk, so it is minimally viable. It is incomplete only because the input parameter's behavior is undocumented in both the schema and the description, which is a clear decision-making gap for an agent deciding whether to pass discard_changes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to explain the discard_changes parameter, but it never mentions it. The phrase 'Save the current project before discarding it' implies loss of unsaved work but does not clarify whether true/false skips a prompt, forces discard, or has another effect; the agent is left to infer the boolean mapping.

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 states a concrete action ('Create a new project') and immediately clarifies that the current project will be discarded, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_project and save_project. Even with no title, there is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 gives actionable guidance by telling the agent to save the current project before invoking the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when new_project should be preferred over open_project, but the warning establishes the prerequisite and context clearly enough.

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