Reload in TurboWarp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It says the tool loads a file from disk but does not mention potential side effects, such as overwriting the current project or losing unsaved changes, nor does it note prerequisites like ensuring a connected TurboWarp Desktop. The 'without going through save_project' phrase hints at a workflow nuance but leaves important behavioral details implicit.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows naturally. Every sentence contributes.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and default behavior. However, it omits important context such as the requirement for connected TurboWarp Desktop userscripts and the potential impact on unsaved project state. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this makes the definition only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the path parameter and its default behavior. The tool description merely restates this ('defaults to the open project') and adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: telling connected TurboWarp Desktop userscripts to load an .sb3 from disk, with a default to the open project. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the contrast with save_project helps distinguish it from related sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use after editing on disk without going through `save_project`,' giving a clear scenario for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention alternative tools like open_project or vm_load, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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