Manage Luw.ai projects, folders & media

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether delete/delete_folder/delete_media are permanent or reversible, whether media is removed from disk, or what permissions are needed. With annotations doing the work, this is thin.

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: the first front-loads the purpose and nesting model, the second covers the add_media routing and the action list. No filler, though the flat action enumeration is dense and does not convey per-action structure.

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 9-parameter, 12-action destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the action inventory but omits per-action parameter requirements, return shape, and irreversibility of deletes. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 67%, and the schema already documents url, extras, folder_id and parent_id. The description lists the action enum values but never maps parameters to actions (e.g., that get/rename/delete need project_id, that create_folder needs name and optional parent_id). It adds the project/folder/media vocabulary but no per-action parameter guidance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Organize work in Luw.ai projects') and enumerates all 12 supported actions, so the agent knows this is the project/folder/media management surface. It also disambiguates the API naming ('called boards in the API'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the siblings are all generation/design tools, so the distinction is largely self-evident.

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 gives one concrete routing hint — 'Use add_media to save generated results into a project' — which ties this tool to the sibling generation tools. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus luw_get_result or luw_upload_file, and no indication of which action to pick for a given intent.

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