Edit project metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'change the open project' but omits whether edits persist to disk, whether they are undoable via bb_undo, whether the texture resolution change resizes/destroys existing texture data, and what happens to unspecified fields — all material for a metadata mutation.

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, front-loaded with the resource and the field list before the use case. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first's enumeration of fields.

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?

With 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: view_mode's legal values, texture dimension constraints, persistence and undo behavior, and return/confirmation semantics are all missing for a write tool.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps four of five parameters to meaning (name, texture_width/height as 'texture resolution', box_uv, view_mode), but adds no format, default, or allowed-value information — notably view_mode is a bare string with no enumerants and box_uv's semantics are unexplained.

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 mutation verb ('Change') on a specific resource ('the open project') and enumerates the four editable facets (name, texture resolution, box_uv default, view mode). It reads clearly against bb_new_project and bb_project_info, though it never names those siblings or resolves the overlap with bb_set_view / bb_set_mode, which also touch view/mode state.

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?

'Use it to rename a project or change the texture canvas the model is authored against' gives two concrete intents, which is better than nothing. But there is no when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (an open project must exist), and no routing away from bb_new_project or bb_set_view; usage is implied rather than delineated.

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