creator_new_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key destructive behavior—discarding the unsaved current project—which is essential for a user to know. It does not address confirmation prompts or undoability, but the most critical behavioral trait is transparently stated.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately follows with the crucial warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, zero-parameter, destructive tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and the main side effect, and there is no output schema or nested objects to further document. The description fully covers the necessary context for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the action and its consequence, and there are no parameter details to compensate for.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new empty Inochi Creator project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'open_project' or 'save_project'. The additional note about discarding the current project further clarifies its unique purpose.

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 implies usage for starting a fresh project and warns about discarding unsaved work, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the discard warning serves as an implicit exclusion for times when preserving the current project is desired.

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