load_design_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any side effects occur (e.g., opening an editing session), or what the return value contains. The metaphor of 'envelope' and 'normalized document' is left unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about the operation's effects.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose and context without unnecessary details. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and object.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what is returned or what state changes occur after loading. Given the absence of annotations and output details, the description is incomplete for a tool that is a prerequisite for editing workflows.

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 already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Saved project id' with full coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond calling it 'saved', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Load' and clearly identifies the resource ('saved design project envelope and its normalized document') and the purpose ('for further editing'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like save_design_project and list_design_projects by focusing on loading a specific project for editing.

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 phrase 'for further editing' provides clear context for when this tool should be used—when an existing project needs to be loaded as a precursor to modification. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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