Replace the entire Clipkit project

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds validation behavior ('validated against the @clipkit/protocol before being accepted'), error behavior ('invalid inputs return an error'), and unknown-key handling ('flags any it does not recognize'). These operational details give the agent expectations for side effects and failure modes.

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 robust but every sentence earns its place: core action, primary usage, alternatives, id behavior, validation, shape summary, and schema pointer. It is front-loaded with the most important information and structured logically.

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 nested object structure and presence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers operation, when to use, parameter behavior, validation, and unknown-key handling. Return values are not described but that is covered by the output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description compensates by explaining the source shape ('{ width, height, duration, ... elements:[…] }') and project_id semantics ('Pass an existing project_id to replace that project; omit it to create a new one'). It also points to get_schema for exact fields, adding guidance without replacing schema.

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?

Description opens with 'Replace the entire project with the given source JSON, returning its project_id,' a specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by declaring 'This is the PRIMARY way to build' and contrasting with edit_element/add_element/delete_element for single-element tweaks.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('to create a composition or to add/change many elements at once') and when not to ('To tweak a single element in an existing project, use edit_element / add_element / delete_element instead'). Also clarifies project_id behavior: pass to replace, omit to create new.

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