Load a shared project back into the session

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds that loading makes the project 'the current project' and returns project_id, which is useful context. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and input format; the example URL and round-trip note are valuable and not 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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description covers input formats, return value, and relationship to open_in_editor, making it fully contextual.

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%, but the description adds clarity by explaining that omitting project_id loads into a new one, a meaningful semantic beyond the schema's generic 'omit when working on a single local project.'

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 'Import' and resource 'previously shared project', states it returns project_id, and explicitly positions itself as the 'round-trip for open_in_editor,' distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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?

Provides an explicit use case: 'continue working on a project the user opened in the editor or shared earlier' and names the sibling counterpart open_in_editor as its inverse, giving an alternative. It also clarifies behavior with optional project_id.

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