project_save_as

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

No annotations provided. The description lacks key behavioral details such as whether the tool overwrites existing files, changes the current working project path, or triggers a save dialog. Basic mutation behavior is not disclosed.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is too brief. It omits crucial context about the effect on the current project, what happens on existing paths, and whether this is a copy or move operation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path'. The description adds only 'new path', which is minimal and does not clarify path format, validation, or behavior when the file exists.

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 ('save') and the resource ('the project') to a new path, distinguishing it from project_save which likely saves to the current path.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like project_save or project_save_undo. The description does not mention prerequisites or use cases.

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