cst_new_project_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect — the project is persisted to the workspace right away, unlike a purely in-memory create. It still omits whether an existing project at the path is overwritten, permission/connection requirements, and any failure semantics.

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 no filler, and the immediate-save detail is front-loaded alongside the action. Efficient, though barely enough content to work with.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and two fully undocumented parameters the single sentence is far too thin. An agent cannot tell where the project is created or what type it will be.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never explains what 'path' represents (workspace location? file path? nullable means default?) or what 'project_type' values like the 'mws' default signify.

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+resource ('Create a new CST project') plus the persistence behavior. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as cst_new_component_tool or cst_open_project_tool, but the resource being a project (not a component) makes intent readable.

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 indication of when to use this versus cst_open_project_tool or cst_new_component_tool, nor prerequisites like an active connection. The 'save it into the workspace immediately' phrase implies a workflow but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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