filmora_open_project_dialog

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description says nothing about what gets destroyed. Opening a project chooser and loading a .wfp can replace the current project/session, which is exactly the behavior an agent needs warned about. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 workflow hint. No filler, though the second sentence is clipped enough that 'the dialog' is slightly ambiguous without prior context.

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-param, no-output tool this is mostly sufficient, but given destructiveHint=true the description should note that loading a project may discard unsaved work or require an existing project context. It also doesn't say what to do if the dialog fails to appear.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed before the dialog is opened and the follow-up call carries the file path.

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 and resource: 'Open Filmora's project chooser.' An agent knows exactly what this does. It doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like filmora_new_project or filmora_import_media_dialog, which also open file-chooser style flows, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the usage sequence ('List/select the dialog, then fill_file_dialog with an existing .wfp'), which gives the agent a next step and names the follow-up tool. However it never states when to choose this over filmora_new_project or filmora_import_media_dialog, so usage is only implied rather than explicit.

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