Open Project

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the concrete behavior an agent needs: the refusal-on-dirty-state rule, that discard_unsaved permanently loses changes, that the operation 'Cannot be undone', and that the return value mirrors get_project. This goes well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the refusal rule, and no sentence is filler — each adds operative information (formats, refusal, data loss, return shape).

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description covers the action, the failure mode, the destructive flag, the irreversibility, and the return contract. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the description must carry all three parameters — and it does: 'new: true' for an empty project, the path constraint ('inside the allowed folders') for .aep/.aepx files, and the exact semantics of discard_unsaved including its destructive side effect. Minor gap: the 'path' parameter is never named explicitly, only implied by the file-format sentence.

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?

States a specific verb (Open) plus resource (After Effects project), enumerates the accepted formats and the empty-project variant, and differentiates itself from siblings by noting it returns 'the new project like get_project' and that it replaces the currently open project. An agent can distinguish it from get_project/save_project without opening any schema.

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 the condition under which the tool refuses (unsaved changes present), the flag that overrides the refusal (discard_unsaved), and the alternative to use when preservation is wanted ('use save_project first to keep them'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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