ae_open_project

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses two important behavioral traits: that opening closes the current project, and that unsaved changes force a save/discard decision. It does not describe success/failure behavior or what happens if both flags are omitted or both set, so it stops short of fully transparent.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, the conditional requirement, and the sibling routing. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key danger (closing the current project) and the save/discard requirement. It omits return values and edge-case handling for conflicting flags, leaving a small but real gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by framing save/discard as a required choice contingent on unsaved state, rather than merely listing them. It still doesn't clarify mutual exclusivity if both are passed, so not a full 5.

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+resource ('Open an .aep project in After Effects') and immediately clarifies the side effect of closing the current project. It goes further by naming the sibling it replaces (ae_run_jsx), letting an agent differentiate it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to use this instead of opening/closing projects via ae_run_jsx and gives the reason (it breaks AE's undo history). It also states the conditional condition under which save/discard must be supplied. Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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