organize_project_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior such as whether the tool destroys existing folder structure, requires specific permissions, or modifies the project irreversibly. The description offers none of this, stating only a vague purpose. For a tool that likely mutates the project, this is insufficient transparency.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical details. The sentence is front-loaded and easy to scan, but it does not earn its place since it fails to inform the agent adequately.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining how structure and customFolders work together, what the result looks like, and whether the operation is reversible. The current description leaves all these gaps unfilled.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter names and enums carry the entire burden. The `structure` parameter has an enum but no description explaining what 'type', 'usage', or 'custom' mean. The `customFolders` parameter has no description clarifying whether these are new folders or must exist. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema shows.

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 says 'Organize project items into folders', which states a verb and a resource, but it is vague. 'Project items' could refer to layers, compositions, or footage, and 'organize' does not specify whether items are moved, copied, or rearranged. Among siblings like `import_folder` and `reduce_project`, this tool's purpose is not clearly distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `import_folder` (which also deals with folders) or `modify_composition`. No context about prerequisites, such as whether the project must be open or items must be selected, is provided.

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