Reload Project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those flags: it releases the old cached references, reopens the project, returns a new summary, and warns that unsaved modifications in the old references are not saved. It does not cover permissions or error behavior.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and then appends the critical unsaved-changes caveat. There is no redundant or filler text.

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, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description still leaves important gaps: it does not explain the required confirmation path or give clear when-to-use routing among related project-state tools.

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 required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that the target is a file-mode .aprx, which gives slight context for aprx_path, but it says nothing about confirm_aprx_path or how the two paths must relate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: release and reopen a file-mode .aprx, returning a new project summary. It clearly differs from save/release siblings by specifying reopen behavior, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the reload behavior, and the warning that unsaved modifications in old cached references will not be saved gives a partial when-not condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of save_project, release_project, or other project-state tools.

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