filmora_save_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the destructive act is overwriting the original, and choosing a new filename avoids it, plus it warns that dialogs appear and must be inspected. It stops short of saying what happens on completion.

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 primary action before the conditional mode and the caveat. Nothing is padded, though 'Inspect dialogs;' is cryptic enough that it borders on under-specification rather than conciseness.

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 destructive save tool with no output schema, the description covers the core risk (overwriting the original) and the dialog step, but leaves the post-save flow and the required companion dialog tools unstated. An agent would have to discover the dialog-filling step itself.

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 schema exposes one boolean, save_as, with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It does explain the parameter's effect: Save As opens a filename path, and using a new filename preserves the original. That is meaningful added value for the only parameter.

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 (Save) and resource (project) and names the two modes, Save vs Save As, which separates it from siblings like filmora_new_project or filmora_open_project_dialog. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

Implies when to choose the Save As path ('use a new filename to preserve the original') and instructs the agent to 'Inspect dialogs', which is a usage hint. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and does not point to the follow-up dialog tools (e.g. filmora_fill_file_dialog) that saving-as likely requires.

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