new_project

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the bar is lower, but the description only adds the word "empty". It says nothing about whether the current project is replaced, whether existing projects are affected, or whether the new project persists to disk automatically.

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 six-word sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a state-changing project-creation tool the description omits the side effects on the currently open project and the meaning of the optional name parameter. That leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently.

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 single parameter "name" is an undocumented nullable string defaulting to null. The description never explains whether the name is optional, what happens if it is omitted (auto-generated name?), or any naming constraints.

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 verb and resource ("Create a new empty project") and the word "empty" adds real scope information. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as open_project or create_sequence, so the agent must infer the contrast from tool names alone.

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 versus open_project, nor any mention of prerequisites such as what happens to a currently open project or unsaved changes. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name.

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