project.reload

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful detail: unsaved changes are discarded unless save_current is true, and the operation is deferred to the main-thread tick. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information: the action and timing are front-loaded, and the destructive warning is concise and clear. 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?

The tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. However, the description covers only one of three parameters and does not fully explain the deferred reload mechanism's implications, leaving noticeable gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It only explains save_current, leaving load_ui and use_scripts semantically unexplained. Their names and defaults offer some hints, but the tool does not describe their behavioral impact.

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 states a specific verb ('Reload'), a specific resource ('current saved .blend file'), and a precise scheduling detail ('on the next main-thread tick'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like project.save and 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?

The description gives clear context: this tool reverts to the last saved state, and using save_current=true preserves unsaved changes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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