create_kicad_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does provide some useful detail by listing the created file types and the optional board outline. However, it does not disclose whether the directory must already exist, whether existing files would be overwritten, or any failure behavior for name collisions.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every word adds useful information about the tool's purpose and optional behavior.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple create operation and benefits from the presence of an output schema, but it leaves important operational details unstated, such as directory handling and overwrite behavior. It is minimally viable but not complete enough for an agent to call it with full confidence in edge cases.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at board_width_mm and board_height_mm via 'optionally with a board outline.' It does not explain the semantics of name or directory, such as whether extensions are added automatically or whether the directory must exist.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new KiCad project') and even names the three file extensions produced, which leaves no doubt about the tool's primary function. It clearly separates this creation tool from the many analysis/modification siblings by focusing on project creation and optional board outline.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_component or analyze_project. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'create' and the project context; no exclusions or routing cues are provided.

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