ae_openProject

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main added value is the unsaved-changes guard. It stops short of explaining what discardChanges actually forfeits (unsaved work is lost) or what happens when the path is invalid, and there is mild tension with destructiveHint=false since discarding changes does lose data.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the app and action, with the critical constraint in a parenthetical. Nothing redundant.

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 open-file tool with no output schema, the description covers the important gotcha (unsaved project) but omits return/error behavior and the default for discardChanges. Adequate rather than complete.

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 description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it names the accepted file types for path and describes discardChanges as the flag that bypasses the save requirement. Both parameters are covered, though the boolean's default is not stated.

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 the specific verb (open) and resource (.aep/.aepx project) plus the host app, which distinguishes it from ae_newProject and ae_importFile. It does not explicitly separate itself from generic siblings like adobe_openFile, but the file-type specificity carries the meaning.

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 parenthetical gives a real precondition (save the current project or pass discardChanges:true), which is actionable usage guidance. It never names an alternative tool or says when to prefer it over ae_newProject or adobe_openFile, so routing is only implied.

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