project_open_bundle

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context on top: the operation is queued asynchronously, media is copied rather than moved, existing destination directories are refused, and the job is polled via job_get. It does not say what happens to a partially copied result if verification fails.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the refusal constraint and the polling instruction. Every sentence carries information, though the final sentence about destinationProjectDir adds naming ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 usefully covers the async job model and the fields returned for polling, and the annotations already cover the safety profile. The main remaining gap is the undocumented bundleDir parameter, plus the unexplained destinationProjectDir return field.

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 50%: projectDir is documented as an absolute path, but bundleDir has no description and the description does not clarify it either. The description does clarify that projectDir is the destination for the new editable project, but it muddies this by introducing 'destinationProjectDir', a name that appears nowhere in the input 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 transformation: verify and open a portable bundle into a new local editable project with copied media. That distinguishes it from the neighboring project_bundle and project_create by describing the bundle-to-project conversion, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so routing relies on inference.

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 a concrete precondition (existing destination directories are refused) and a post-call instruction (poll job_get using the returned projectDir and id). It stops short of naming the alternative to use when the destination already exists or when the user is not starting from a bundle.

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