Project Create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns paths and config, but says nothing about mutation side effects, duplicate-name behavior, permission requirements, or whether creation is idempotent — all important for a create operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no wasted text. The trailing 'return its paths and config' is slightly redundant given the existing output schema, but it is not verbose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, opaque parameters, and a complex sibling set, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but behavior, parameter meaning, and routing versus project_start remain unexplained.

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 adds no parameter detail. The theme parameter is an opaque object with additionalProperties true and a null default; the description does nothing to explain what keys it accepts or how it is used, leaving only the schema's types, enum, and defaults as guidance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create an animation project.' This distinguishes it from read/update siblings like project_get and project_update_theme. It does not, however, differentiate it from project_start, which an agent might reasonably confuse with project creation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus project_start or other siblings, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints are stated. The agent must infer that 'create' means a new project and that project_start likely operates on an existing one.

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