Create project from template

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so calling the tool 'MUTATING' restates what the annotations already say. The description does add the concrete side effect, that a project is added to the app's list, and the internal flow of template config plus addFirmware. It does not say what happens on failure, how duplicate names are handled, or whether the new project is opened afterward.

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?

One sentence, with the action and resource front-loaded, and every clause either names templates or states the side effect. There is minimal waste.

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?

The description covers the creation action and its side effect, but it leaves out the result of the call entirely: there is no output schema, so the agent cannot tell whether the call returns a project id, the project object, or nothing, which matters if the agent must subsequently call project_open_editor or project_load. The template-list mismatch also undercuts completeness.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, including the 31-character limit and the default name behavior. The description repeats the template keys but does not add format or semantics beyond the schema, and it lists 'none' as a template even though that value is absent from the enum, which could mislead an agent about accepted input.

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 has a specific verb and resource, 'Create a new CyberBrick project from a built-in template', and names the concrete templates the tool accepts, so an agent can tell it apart from project_list, project_load and project_import. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Use is only implied: creating a project from a built-in template. The description gives no explicit rule for when to choose this over project_import or project_load, and it never states preconditions such as whether a window or app session must already be active.

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