Validate and open an existing engine project, then resume its Design Flow session to continue work.
Mutating session operation. Validate and open an existing engine project, then resume/start its Design Flow session. It never repairs invalid persisted state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those by calling the operation mutating. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the tool 'never repairs invalid persisted state,' which is an important limitation an agent should know before invoking 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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The mutating/non-read-only nature is front-loaded, the core action is stated clearly, and the important caveat about not repairing invalid persisted state earns its place.
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 only one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety hints, the description covers the essential behavior: mutating, resuming an existing project session, and not repairing invalid state. It does not detail what happens when validation fails, but the output schema likely captures that, so the description is sufficiently complete.
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 compensate for the single project_path parameter. It does clarify that the path must reference an existing engine project, but it does not add details about expected path format, validation behavior, or error conditions. This is minimal but adequate for a single-parameter tool.
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 states a specific verb ('resume/start'), a specific resource ('Design Flow session'), and the prerequisite ('existing engine project'). It also identifies the operation as mutating, which distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling tools like get_state and get_trace.
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?
The description implies the tool is for resuming an existing project rather than creating a new one, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as new_project or state when this tool should not be used. The phrase 'existing engine project' gives clear context, yet no explicit when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.