Save Project

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes further: it explains what clean:true destroys (footage no comp uses, with removed_footage count), what snapshot:true creates (numbered copy in snapshots/, labeled by note), and the overwrite semantics. These are exactly the destructive and side-effect details the annotations flag but do not explain.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the primary action, then branching behavior for path/no-path, then the clean/snapshot modifiers. Every sentence carries information; a small readability cost from the ellipses-heavy style, but no padding.

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 5-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail, the description covers the branching logic, preconditions, destructive side effects, retention behavior, and the recovery path. An agent has everything needed to choose parameters and anticipate outcomes.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does for most params: path triggers Save As, overwrite replaces existing files, clean removes unused footage, snapshot creates a retained copy, note becomes the snapshot label. Only 'note' semantics are slightly implicit, but the overall coverage is strong for a 0%-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save the project') and distinguishes two distinct behaviors: Save As with path versus in-place save without. This is clearly separable from get_project and open_project in the sibling list.

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 covers the when: with path does Save As, without path saves in place. Notes the precondition that in-place save requires an already-saved project, and links render_start to needing a saved project. Names open_project as the recovery route via snapshots. This is textbook routing guidance.

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