project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It hints that mutations are included (save/load, undo/redo) but never states reversibility, permission requirements, side effects, or which actions are read-only versus destructive. For a 35-action dispatcher with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the resource name, so it is not bloated. But the enumerated coverage list consumes its length without conveying actionable detail (valid actions, usage), so it reads as under-specification rather than tight concision.

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 dispatcher exposing 35 actions with no enum, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves an agent unable to determine which action strings exist or what any of them do. Almost nothing needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 0%, the required 'action' string is a freeform value, and 'args' is an untyped nested object. The description never enumerates or exemplify valid action values, which is the single most important parameter detail for calling this tool. '[35 actions]' acknowledges the gap instead of filling it.

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 names the resource domain ('project') and enumerates broad areas it covers (settings, media import, save/load, undo/redo, inspect), so an agent knows this is the project-level namespace. However, it never states what the tool actually does at the action level, and the '[35 actions]' note flags breadth without resolving it. Differentiation from siblings is only by domain name, not by function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (timeline, effects, audio, etc.), nor on how to select among the 35 actions. The category list implies scope but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or routing advice.

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