aeroedu_davinci_project_open

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that DaVinci Resolve must be running, which is useful, but it does not explain behavioral details like what happens if the project already exists or if creation fails. The description does not contradict 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second adds a prerequisite and a follow-up tool suggestion. No superfluous content.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite (DaVinci Resolve running) and a logical next step (importing clips). Annotations provide additional behavioral hints. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (project_name and create_if_missing) with their meanings and constraints. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool opens or creates a project in DaVinci Resolve, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that handle clips, color, rendering, etc., which are about different aspects of DaVinci Resolve.

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 explicitly requires DaVinci Resolve to be running (prerequisite) and suggests using aeroedu_davinci_clip_import after opening a project. While it gives clear context, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives.

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