Project open

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it names exactly what is destroyed (unsaved edits), the guard condition that blocks the call, the requirement that the app be running, and that the path must be absolute. It also points to the governing rules via bulc_knowledge_search, which is unusually informative for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then hardening constraints. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the bracketed rule-ID tail (GEN-006/010/016 plus the knowledge-search pointer) is boilerplate that slightly dilutes the prose.

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?

Preconditions, destructive side effects, environment constraints, and rule references are all present, which is ample for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not state what happens to the currently open project on success (replacement vs. new window), a minor residual gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (absolute path, default false for discard_unsaved). The description reinforces the destructive semantics of discard_unsaved but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Open a .bulc project or a .fds deck in the running BULC app') with an explicit analogy to File > Open and enumeration of the side files included. This clearly separates it from project_new, project_save, and the many shape_* creation tools.

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?

States the operating context ('Live app only'), the precondition for refusal (unsaved changes), and the fallback flag (discard_unsaved=true with a user-confirmation instruction). It does not, however, name sibling alternatives such as project_new for creating a document or project_save for persisting one.

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