Create a new project folder in the Takes library to organize scripts, takes, and posts for talking-head videos. Provide a name to start grouping related recordings and edits.
Create a project (a folder in the Takes library).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the new project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful semantics that the created object is a library folder, but says nothing about what happens on duplicate names, required permissions, or what is returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical clarification earns its place by defining an otherwise ambiguous domain term.
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 one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about success behavior and what identifier comes back, which matters for chaining into create_session or save_to_library.
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?
Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.
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?
Specific verb + resource ("Create a project") plus a clarifying gloss that a project is "a folder in the Takes library," which disambiguates it from the many other create_* siblings. It stops short of naming how it differs from create_session or create_style, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointing at siblings such as list_projects or create_session. The agent must infer context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.