pr_newProject

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: the existing open project is saved first, and the new project becomes current. It does not clarify overwrite behavior if the path exists, but it surfaces the main side effect an agent needs to know.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words. The core action, file format, and side effect are front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: creating a .prproj, making it current, and saving the existing project first. It could mention overwrite behavior or the expected return state, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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?

With one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description usefully clarifies that the path should point to a .prproj file. However, it does not specify whether the path must be absolute, whether directories are created, or what happens if the file already exists, so parameter meaning is only partially enriched.

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: create a new Premiere Pro project at a path, make it current, and save the open project first. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pr_saveProject or ae_newProject by naming the application and describing the creation-and-activation behavior.

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 description gives clear implied usage: call it to create a new project and switch to it. It also notes that an open project will be saved first, which helps an agent understand when this is safe to invoke. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear for this operation.

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