fmod_project_filePath

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic read/write functionality without describing any side effects, validation, or error conditions. For example, it does not mention if writing the path triggers a save or requires permissions.

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 sentence, effectively front-loading the core purpose. It is concise but includes a typo (backtick instead of apostrophe) which slightly detracts from professionalism.

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?

The description lacks information about return values, especially when reading the property. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the 'value' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. No contradiction, but no enhancement either.

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 that the tool gets or sets the absolute path to the project's .fspro file. It uses specific language ('absolute path', 'file on disk') and includes a metadata tag indicating it's a property. However, it does not explicitly state that it supports both reading and writing, relying on the input schema to imply that.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like fmod_get_property and fmod_set_property that could serve similar purposes, but the description offers no differentiation or context for choosing this tool.

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