Project New

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait — derived_from carries over objectives and lineage (intent provenance) — but says nothing about side effects of creation, what the new project directory contains, permissions, or error behavior for a mutation tool with 9 parameters.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good, but the remainder reads as a loose set of parameter notes rather than a structured explanation. Size is moderate but the transition from creation semantics to per-field commentary is abrupt.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but for a 9-parameter creation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves most inputs and all behavioral traits undocumented. It is not sufficient to call this tool correctly without opening the schema.

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. It does add genuine meaning for offset_sec ('time of bar 1', tied to matching a reference grid via analyze_grid), objective, and derived_from, but the required parameters project, bpm, and length_bars plus name, reference, and beats_per_bar are left entirely unexplained.

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 opening sentence 'Create a new project directory' gives a specific verb (create) and resource (project), which is enough to separate it from project_info and project_set on the 'new' axis. However, it does not explicitly state the create-vs-update relationship to project_set, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 guidance on when to create a new project versus working with an existing one, nor on prerequisites. analyze_grid and project_set are named only as cross-references for parameter meaning, not as alternatives to choose between.

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