Open RIS project

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no credentials are requested (desktop session login), saving returns to server via rillsoft_project_ris_save, there is no undo because command history restarts, and loader output lands in note. That is meaningful disclosure of side effects and auth behavior.

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 purpose and projectId, then constraints in priority order. It is dense with semicolon-joined clauses and slightly long, but each sentence carries non-redundant information (template refusal, discardChanges gate, no undo, note[]) so nothing is padding.

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 and the description defers return detail to it while still pointing at note[]. For a destructive, state-replacing open operation with 4 params, it covers auth, alternatives, prerequisites, conflict/lock behavior, and undo loss — nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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% (including lock enum semantics and readOnly), so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by tying discardChanges:true to the concrete condition 'with unsaved changes pending' and by noting where the lock-read-only outcome is reported (note[]), not just the schema's field-level 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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: opens a RIS project of the logged-in client identified by projectId, and explicitly replaces the current project. It differentiates itself from siblings by naming rillsoft_project_ris_list (id source) and rillsoft_project_file_open (local .rpj), so an agent can select it without opening any 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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: templates are refused (ris_template_unsupported) and local .rpj files go through rillsoft_project_file_open instead. It also states the precondition that pending unsaved changes require discardChanges:true, which is exactly the routing decision an agent must make before calling.

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