filmora_new_project

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered; the description adds the useful detail that an existing project may prompt to save. However, "inspect before proceeding" is vague and it doesn't say what gets destroyed, whether the prompt blocks execution, or what the workflow leaves open.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the caution. Nothing is wasted, though "inspect before proceeding" is underspecified rather than merely brief.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with destructive annotations, the description covers the core action and the main side-effect risk, but omits how to handle the save prompt (e.g., which sibling to call) and what the workflow subsequently opens.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.

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 action (open the new-project workflow) on an identifiable resource, which separates it from siblings like filmora_save_project and filmora_open_project_dialog. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so an agent gets a clear purpose but no direct disambiguation.

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?

"inspect before proceeding" implies a cautious-use context and the save-prompt note hints at when care is needed, but the description never states when to prefer this over filmora_open_project_dialog or how it relates to filmora_save_project. Usage is only implied.

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