ae_save_project

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 discloses the prerequisite for saving in place but does not mention whether saves are overwritten, if the operation is reversible, or if it returns any success/failure feedback. For a simple save operation, a 3 is adequate.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the purpose and then explains the two modes and their conditions. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and the simple domain of file saving, the description covers the essential modes and prerequisite. It could mention return values (e.g., success/error) for completeness, but the current level is nearly sufficient.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that providing a path creates or saves as a new file, while omitting it saves in place only if the project already has a file. This clarifies the parameter's behavior and prerequisites.

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 clearly states 'Save the After Effects project (.aep)' and distinguishes between save-as with a path and save in place without it. This specific verb+resource combination sets it apart from sibling tools that deal with adding effects, layers, or animations.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to provide a path (save-as/create) and when to omit it (save in place), including a prerequisite (file must already exist). While it doesn't list when not to use the tool or alternatives, the context signals and sibling tools make the use cases clear.

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