Normalize project

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing the file is overwritten in place, that a copy is preserved as <name>.illugen.bak (replacing any previous backup), and that IlluGen must be installed. This matches and enriches the idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false profile rather than contradicting it.

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 tight sentences: what it does, when to use it, and side effects/return values. The destructive-adjacent facts (overwrite, backup) are front-loaded rather than buried at the end.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returns (path, backup, log_issues, node_count). It also covers the hard prerequisite (IlluGen installed) and the overwrite/backup behavior, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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 100% for the single 'path' parameter ('Absolute path of the .illugen project file'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or path conventions beyond that, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

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?

Precise verb+resource: 'Loads the project in a private, invisible IlluGen and saves it back in place, the way IlluGen writes it', then enumerates the actual transformations (fills defaults, applies IlluGen's own fixes, refreshes embedded thumbnail). This differentiates it cleanly from siblings like project_validate, project_new and project_thumbnail, which do not rewrite the file on disk.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use it before sharing a project built with this server, or to update a project made with an older IlluGen.' Clear when-to-use context, though it names no alternative (e.g. project_validate for checking without rewriting) and states no when-not-to-use exclusion.

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