Creates a new empty project in the canvas. Rejects if a project with the same name exists, preventing selection errors.
在画布里新建一个空项目。已经有同名项目时会拒绝（避免以后选错项目），请换个名字或直接用原来的项目。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 新项目的名称，比如「第08集-场10」。不能和已有项目重名 | |
| description | No | 项目说明，可不填 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool enforces name uniqueness and refuses duplicate names, and the created project starts empty. It does not mention error/response shape or any permission requirements, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the rejection condition, then the remedy. The parenthetical rationale ('避免以后选错项目') explains the constraint rather than padding, and nothing is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here, and the description covers purpose, the uniqueness failure mode, and the workaround for a simple 2-parameter tool. It leaves out only secondary details such as whether the new project becomes active or what error signal the rejection produces.
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%, with both 'name' and 'description' fully documented including an example name format. The description adds the same uniqueness constraint already stated on the 'name' parameter, so it contributes no semantic detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource (新建一个空项目 / create an empty project) scoped to the canvas, and states what the object is (empty project) rather than a vague 'create' action. No sibling tool competes for this operation (the others are list/get/upload/add-node variants), so the agent can select it unambiguously.
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?
Explicitly states the when-not condition (a same-named project already exists → the call is rejected) and gives two named alternatives: pick a different name, or reuse the existing project. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the rubric rewards.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.