armorpaint_open_project

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by warning the agent to save the current project before opening, implying current work may be lost. It does not contradict any annotation and gives a concrete behavioral safeguard.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core operation and immediately followed by the critical safety instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description should explain both parameters and behavior more fully. It adequately states the operation and save warning, but leaves discard_changes and path handling to inference.

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?

The schema provides 0% description coverage, and the description fails to explain path_name or discard_changes. 'Save the current project first' hints at change handling but doesn't clarify the discard_changes boolean's role or default behavior.

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 uses a clear verb ('Open') and specific resource (an existing .arm project), which distinguishes it from creation or save operations. It doesn't name a sibling tool, but 'existing' implicitly separates it from new_project and save operations.

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?

It gives a clear practical instruction: 'Save the current project first,' establishing a prerequisite for safe use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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