Create Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It goes beyond 'create' by disclosing that validation happens during creation and that invalid geometry is still saved and editable, which is a non-obvious side effect.

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?

One tight sentence with the key caveat in front; no filler. It is concise, though its brevity leaves parameter semantics to the schema.

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 create flow and validation behavior are covered, and an output schema exists, so return details are not required. However, with no parameter descriptions and no guidance on how this validation differs from validate_scad, a fully autonomous agent would still have to guess at some inputs.

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%; the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'Invalid geometry' hints at initial_scad_code, but units, requirements, name, and description semantics are left entirely to inference from parameter names.

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 action ('Create and validate version 1') on a clear resource via the title, and the validation caveat distinguishes it from update/finalize/validate-only tools. No ambiguity about what operation this performs.

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 implies use when creating a new project and its first version ('Create and validate version 1'), but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as update_model or validate_scad.

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