Create AgentFEM project

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the 'approved root' and 'version-matched' constraints, which are more about prerequisites than behavior. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing projects), permission requirements, or what 'approved' means. Given annotations cover safety, the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and key constraints without fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 creation tool with three parameters and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description should clarify what 'approved root' means, how to specify a valid template, and whether the tool creates directories or files. The output schema exists but the description lacks crucial invocation details, leaving an agent to guess.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'path' must be inside an approved root and that 'template' must be a version-matched official template, but it does not explain the 'name' parameter, the format of 'path', or the available template values. This is insufficient for a tool with three parameters.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a new project') and adds precise constraints: 'version-matched official AgentFEM template' and 'inside an approved root'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_project or inspect_project, which are about analysis rather than creation.

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 contextual constraints (version-matched template, approved root) that imply when to use it, but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent could infer the purpose, but there is no routing guidance to other tools.

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