save_project_as

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool saves with modifications but doesn't disclose whether this creates a new project file, overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or what happens to the original project. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, efficiently communicates the essential functionality without unnecessary elaboration. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, side effects, or how it differs from similar tools. Given the context of video editing tools, more detail about project state changes would be expected.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying these parameters define the save operation, but doesn't elaborate on format constraints, validation rules, or interaction effects. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('saves') and resource ('current project') with specific modifications ('with a new name and location'). It distinguishes from 'save_project' by specifying 'as' functionality, though not explicitly naming the sibling. Purpose is clear but could be more explicit about differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_project' or 'create_project'. The description implies it's for saving an existing project with modifications, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requires an open project) or contrast with similar tools.

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