create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the core mutation (creates a new project) and the return value (project name). However, it does not mention failure modes, overwrite behavior, prerequisites, or side effects beyond creation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded and the return value is explicitly stated. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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 simple two-parameter creation tool, the description is mostly complete: it explains the action, the example-based source, and the return value. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but the schema covers parameter semantics and no output schema is required given the return is explicitly stated.

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 100%, so the parameters 'name' and 'example' are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic value by linking the action to an example, but it does not explain optionality, default behavior, or example value formatting beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Crea un proyecto HyperFrames nuevo') and a distinguishing mode ('a partir de un ejemplo'), while also specifying the return value. This clearly differentiates create_project from sibling tools like list_projects, render_video, and write_project_file.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as write_project_file for modifying existing projects or list_projects for reading. The word 'nuevo' implies creation, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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