create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the demo mesh is wired to template defaults so the case runs out of the box, and that it returns created file paths and next steps. However, it does not mention potential side effects such as overwriting an existing directory or whether the operation is limited to an empty directory, leaving a transparency gap for a file-creating 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, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. Every clause adds value: the file types created, the optional demo mesh behavior, and the return value. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool is moderately complex (5 params, no annotations, output schema present). The description covers the main artifacts, the demo mesh option, and the return format, but omits guidance on how 'overrides' works or how to choose a template (e.g., referencing list_templates). It is adequate but not fully complete for a scaffolding tool.

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 only clarifies two parameters: 'template' implicitly (from a template) and 'create_demo_mesh' explicitly (optional demo mesh). It does not explain 'overrides' (a complex customization parameter), 'directory', or 'name', leaving three of five parameters largely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scaffold') and a specific resource ('complete Kratos case directory'), and explicitly names the files created (ProjectParameters.json + Materials.json). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project_parameters or create_materials, which focus on individual files.

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 context is clear: use this when you want a complete, runnable case from a template. It implies a higher-level alternative to the more granular sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it. The optional demo mesh detail also signals the intended use case.

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