cst_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the dual-mode behavior (direct creation vs VBA script return), which is key. However, it omits important behavioral details: what happens if the path already exists (overwrite? error?), required user permissions, or any side effects. These gaps reduce transparency for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: first states the primary action, second explains mode-dependent behavior. No repetition, no filler words. The most important info ('Create project') is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, parameters (via schema), and mode behavior. However, it lacks specifics about return values (beyond VBA script), error handling, or path constraints. Given the context, it is largely complete but could address a few edge cases.

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 describes both parameters with examples and default values (100% coverage). The description adds little beyond the schema, merely restating the path example and project types. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not provide additional semantic value (e.g., constraints on path, format rules).

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a CST project file with specific verb 'Create' and resource 'CST Studio Suite project file'. It distinguishes between connected and offline modes, providing clear scope. No sibling tool has a similar purpose (e.g., cst_open_project opens existing projects), ensuring uniqueness.

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?

Description explains the main use case (creating a project) and provides context about the two operational modes (connected vs offline). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if a project already exists, might need to overwrite) or point to an alternative (cst_open_project for existing projects). Still, the mode distinction offers useful guidance.

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