Create project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but adds some useful context: it creates an 'empty' project with one track and fails if the path already exists. However, it omits permission requirements, behavior on partial path existence, the effect of the channels parameter, and any return information.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and artifact, followed by a failure condition. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 project-creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the action, artifact type, initial track, and failure condition. Without annotations, additional behavioral details (e.g., permissions) could be stated, but the core information is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'one track' but does not explain the channels parameter or its default, adding no semantic detail beyond the schema baseline.

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 (Creates) and resource (Audionaut project), identifies the artifact type (.audium package), and describes the initial state (one track). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_region or place_clip by focusing on project 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical scenarios. It only states a failure condition (path already exists), which is behavioral rather than usage guidance.

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