create_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: format dimensions and duration limits ('shorts' <60s) and what is returned (project id and quality guide). It does not mention authorization or side effects, but for a creation tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two efficiently worded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and key points; the second clarifies the return value. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key return value (project id and quality guide) and explains format choice. It could mention language defaults or voice, but those are covered in the schema. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and basic usage.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the format enum with aspect ratios and duration constraints, which is not in the schema enum descriptions. It does not describe other parameters like title or voice, but those have schema descriptions. The added context for format justifies a 4.

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 clearly states 'Start a new faceless video project', identifying the verb and resource. It specifies the format options ('shorts' vs 'long') and mentions the return value (project id and quality guide), distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools that handle subsequent steps like set_script or generate_narration.

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 implicitly tells when to use (to start a project) by mentioning 'Returns the project id used by all other tools', indicating it's the first step. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear given sibling tools are later steps.

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