project_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral facts: path triggers autosave after every edit, and background accepts 'transparent'. It omits other important traits such as what happens to the current document, whether this replaces existing state, or what the call returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in three words, then a dense but compact enumeration of options. Every clause adds usable information and there is 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 document-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers sizing, saving and background well, but leaves open the return value, the default behavior of 'name', and any interaction with the existing project or UI state.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: it enumerates valid preset values, explains width/height, clarifies that from_image derives canvas size from the photo, and explains path/autosave and background='transparent'. Only 'name' is left 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 first sentence gives a clear verb and resource ('Create a document'), and the remainder enumerates the concrete sizing/saving options. It is distinguishable from project_open and project_save by intent, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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 explains the three mutually exclusive ways to define canvas size (preset list, width/height, from_image), which is genuine usage guidance for the parameters. However, it never states when to use project_create versus project_open, nor any precondition such as whether the UI must be open.

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