create_previs_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses persistence, the non-effects (no Pod start, no render), and the remote-mode prerequisite, but says nothing about collision behavior (existing project_id), permissions, failure modes, or expected result. Meaningful but incomplete disclosure for a write operation.

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?

Short, front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (scope, path resolution, Pod prerequisite, non-effects). Minor wasted opportunity in the line-broken formatting, but no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most confusing piece (scene_path resolution) and the remote precondition, but leaves mode values, project_id semantics, and post-call state undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps that would cause agent guessing.

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 and only partially does: it clarifies scene_path semantics (relative to the target's configured workspace) and implies the pod_id condition for remote mode. The critical 'mode' parameter — a free-text string with no enum — is never given its allowed values, and 'project_id'/'name' are left entirely undefined.

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 persistent project') with scope tied to the user's selected local/remote target, which separates it from siblings like get_previs_project_status or set_previs_project_target. It does not explicitly name a sibling it could be confused with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions ('Remote mode requires an explicit existing Pod ID') and clear exclusions ('does not start a Pod or render'), which tells an agent what must already exist and what this call will not accomplish. It stops short of naming alternative tools or the sequencing (e.g., target selection first), so no explicit when-vs-which guidance.

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