ap_project_save_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly explains that the write is DEFERRED to the next frame, that the reply only confirms the path and queued save, and that verification should be done via ap_fs_stat. This meaningfully describes asynchronous side effects beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the critical deferral behavior and verification pointer in compact form.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly: what action happens, that it is deferred, what the reply means, and how to verify success. It does not detail error cases or exact return payload, but the provided guidance is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the single required path parameter is already documented with format guidance ('.arm file', absolute path, forward slashes, backslash conversion). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the project file path and save to it,' clearly defining a save-as operation. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ap_project_save by indicating it sets a new path in addition to saving.

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?

It names the related sibling ap_project_save and contrasts the behavior, implying this tool is for saving to a new/chosen path while ap_project_save likely saves to the current path. It also tells the agent to verify the eventual result with ap_fs_stat, giving practical follow-up guidance, though it stops short of explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use.

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