Create project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it replaces the currently open project, discards unsaved changes when required, resets the command history, and cannot be undone. These consequences are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and consequence. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information (scope, parameter condition, alternative tool, irreversibility).

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 needn't be explained. Given the tool's destructive nature, the description covers reversibility, side effects on the open project, the parameter condition, and the alternative tool, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (baseline 3). The description adds real semantic value by stating the condition under which discardChanges must be true, which the schema's terse 'true = discard unsaved changes' does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Creates a new empty project') and clarifies the scope by noting it 'replaces the one that is open.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rillsoft_project_file_open, which covers the different task of opening an existing file.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance ('With unsaved changes pending, discardChanges:true is required') and names the correct alternative tool for a related-but-distinct task ('Opening an existing file goes through rillsoft_project_file_open'). The agent knows both when to use this and when to route elsewhere.

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