open_project

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important destructive trait – force=true discards unsaved changes – but says nothing about what happens when no project is open, whether the current project is closed first, error behavior on an unsupported or missing file, or whether unsaved-work protection exists when force is false.

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?

Each language version is a tight two-clause sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded where it matters, but the entire text is duplicated verbatim in Japanese, doubling the length without adding information for a single agent.

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 two-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the accepted inputs and the one dangerous flag, but leaves open what state it returns and how it interacts with an already-open project – the main things an agent must reason about before calling a project-switching 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%, so the prose must carry both parameters, and it largely does: the extension list defines what the required path accepts, and force is explicitly tied to discarding unsaved changes. It stops short of saying whether path is absolute or relative or what force=false does when there are unsaved changes.

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 (open) and resource (a project file) and enumerates the accepted formats (.ustx, .ust, .vsqx, .mid, .musicxml, .svp), which cleanly separates it from siblings like new_project, save_project, and get_project.

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 usage is implied rather than explained: there is no statement of when to prefer this over new_project or get_project, and no prerequisites such as whether the path must exist or whether an already-open project is replaced. The one explicit conditional is for force=true, which is useful but is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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