New, open or save

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value by disclosing that both new and open replace the current project 'in place of this one', clarifying exactly what is destroyed. It does not mention undo or save side effects, but goes meaningfully beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the general purpose, then scoped per-mode with terse 'new:'/'open:'/'save:' prefixes. Info-dense with no wasted sentences, though the run-on style compresses several rules into one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all three modes plus path rules are covered. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though permissions/undo context would have been a bonus.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: path accepts .newera or .sh3d-to-import for open, and is optional for save once previously saved. This is genuine added meaning.

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 clear verbs (start/open/save) and resource (the project), and enumerates each of the three action modes with specifics like '.newera' and '.sh3d' import. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings such as create or export, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Implicitly guides usage per mode ('path is optional once it was saved' tells the agent when path can be omitted), but gives no when-to-use-vs-alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. Adequate embedded guidance, no explicit routing.

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