create_new_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'create' and 'save', implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing projects, error conditions, or what happens after creation. This leaves critical gaps 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?

The description is brief but not well-structured; 'a save it' is grammatically incorrect and adds confusion. It's front-loaded with the core action but wastes words on redundancy. A single clear sentence would be more effective, making it somewhat inefficient.

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?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome, error handling, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a mutation operation, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the 'path' parameter—it doesn't explain what the path represents, its format, or constraints. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Create a new project a save it' which indicates the verb (create) and resource (project), but it's grammatically awkward with 'a save it' and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_project' or 'load_project'. It communicates a basic purpose but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this creation operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_project' or 'load_project'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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