project_save_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the basic action but does not disclose whether the current project is re-pointed to the new file, whether an existing file at the path would be overwritten, or any permission requirements. The 'new .aup3 file' phrasing hints at non-destructiveness, but consequences remain unclear.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by a critical usage guardrail and a single parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 one-parameter tool without annotations or an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation, trigger condition, and parameter semantics. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about side effects on the current project state, which would matter for a save-as 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 only defines 'path' as a string with no description. The tool description compensates by specifying 'Absolute path for the new .aup3 file', adding both path type and expected file extension. It could further clarify overwrite or file-existence behavior, but it covers the core meaning well.

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 ('Save') and resource ('current project') and names the exact target format ('a new .aup3 file'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as project_save or project_open.

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?

It explicitly states when to call ('ONLY call when user explicitly asks') and when not to ('Do NOT auto-save after effects or pipelines'). It does not name an alternative tool, but the when/when-not guidance is strong enough to prevent misuse.

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