create_project

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

Annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that creation targets a configured project root and fails if the project already exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a key failure condition. There is no wasted text.

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?

The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description need not explain those. However, for a tool with two undocumented parameters, it leaves important invocation details unclear, especially the meaning of "name" and "root."

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain what the required "name" parameter does or how the optional "root" parameter changes the target location, only referring vaguely to a "configured project root."

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new _prj directory in a configured project root." This distinguishes it from listing or cloning tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative for creating a project.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clone_schematic, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the failure condition. The use case is implied by the verb but not elaborated.

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