Open or create a project

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

Annotations only indicate this is not read-only, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key safety trait: the tool fails rather than discarding unsaved work, and explains how to override that behavior deliberately. This goes beyond the schema and gives useful operational context.

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 paragraphs, no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second provides the critical safety/usage constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with two parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: how to open, how to create, what failure mode to expect, and how to handle unsaved changes. It mentions the relevant sibling tool for saving, completing the workflow context.

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 100%, with both path and discardChanges already well documented. The description adds some context by mentioning ae_save_project and discardChanges, but it mostly restates behavior already present in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Open an .aep file, or start a new empty project.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ae_create_comp (new composition) and ae_save_project (save), so an agent can tell 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?

Provides explicit guidance: if the current project has unsaved changes, save it first with ae_save_project or pass discardChanges to intentionally discard. It also clarifies that omitting path creates a new empty project. This is direct when-to-use and alternative routing.

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