Release Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds that it does not delete or save the project, but it never discloses the real consequence of releasing the reference (unsaved in-memory edits are dropped, the project handle is closed), which is exactly the destructive behavior the annotation hints at. Some added context, with a notable gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the effect (release the process cache reference) and then the scope negation (does not delete or save). No filler, though it could be split for readability and it omits triggers entirely.

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 described, and annotations cover idempotency/destructiveness. However, for a destructive, confirm-guarded project operation the description omits unsaved-change consequences, parameter confirmation semantics, and any routing against save_project/reload_project, leaving real gaps.

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 description says nothing about either parameter. In particular the double-entry confirmation parameter confirm_aprx_path is left unexplained — the agent must guess that it must match aprx_path. With two required parameters at zero coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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: releasing the in-process cache/reference of a file-mode project (APRX) so external edits or schema locks become visible. It also prevents misreading by clarifying the project is neither deleted nor saved. It does not name a sibling (e.g., save_project, reload_project) for differentiation, so it falls short of 5.

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?

A usage condition is implied — call it when you need external modifications or schema locks to become visible — but there is no explicit when/when-not framing and no named alternative (save_project, reload_project, release_temporary_view, sdk_release_project_lease all live in the same sibling space). Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger.

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