create_project

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden for operational disclosure. It adds the TYPLEAF_SESSION requirement and the compiler failure behavior, which are valuable beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing success returns or side effects, but the disclosed information is substantial.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core purpose, the second delivers the most essential usage caveat and authentication requirement. No filler or redundancy—ideal length and structure.

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 create operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the session requirement, the compiler selection guidance, and the failure mode. It is complete for safe and correct invocation.

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%, providing base descriptions for both parameters. The description adds significant value for the compiler parameter by explaining its default and the critical pitfall (confusing TeX errors), which the enum alone does not convey. For the name parameter, no additional nuance is added, but that is acceptable given its simplicity.

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 identifies the action: 'Create a new blank Typleaf project'. It specifies the resource type and even distinguishes from other tools by mentioning the web API context. It also names the key compiler option upfront, making it easy for an agent to understand what this tool does.

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 provides strong guidance on when to use compiler='typst', explaining the default pdflatex and the specific failure mode for .typ files. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools like set_compiler (for modifying an existing project's compiler) or list_projects, leaving some inference required for an agent to know this is only for initial creation.

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