create_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core create action and parameter meanings; it does not describe filesystem side effects, prerequisites such as an active engine, whether an existing path will be overwritten, or failure behavior.

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 clear opening sentence plus a compact Args list with no redundant text. It is front-loaded and every line contributes parameter meaning.

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 parameter information is sufficient to make a basic call, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is less critical. However, for a mutating tool with no annotations, the description omits usage boundaries, prerequisite conditions, and side-effect behavior, leaving an agent without guidance for failure or setup 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by documenting all three parameters. It adds useful meaning: name constraints (alphanumeric, hyphens, underscores), path as target directory, and template with its default. It does not enumerate valid template values or clarify path format, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new O3DE project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_entity, create_level, and create_gem because the resource type (O3DE project) is explicit and unique.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type: use this tool when a new O3DE project is needed. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as list_templates for finding template options or list_projects for existing projects.

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