eda_dmt_project_create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return value (UUID or undefined on failure) but says nothing about side effects, required permissions, whether the project is opened, or any other behavioral context. For a creation mutation, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely terse—just a signature and a one-line Chinese description of the return behavior. It's concise and front-loaded with the signature, but the language (Chinese) and lack of explanatory prose may reduce clarity for non-Chinese agents, though the core info is present.

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 schema's lack of parameter detail and no annotations, the description provides the signature and return semantics, which is adequate for a basic creation call. However, it omits details like whether the teamUuid or folderUuid are required, what collaborationMode values are accepted, and any post-creation behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description lists all six function parameters with their types (projectFriendlyName, projectName, teamUuid, folderUuid, description, collaborationMode) via the signature, which adds meaning beyond the schema's opaque 'args' array. It clarifies the argument order and optionality, substantially helping an agent construct the call.

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 the tool creates a project ('创建工程') and provides the full function signature, which makes the purpose clear. It doesn't differentiate from sibling creation tools (e.g., create_board, create_pcb), but the verb 'create' and the project-specific name are explicit enough.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like eda_dmt_project_copy_project or eda_dmt_board_create_board. There are no prerequisites, context cues, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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