project_save_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds the behavioral warning about user-initiated usage, but does not disclose what happens if the file already exists (overwrite?), or whether undo history is preserved. Minimal but acceptable for a simple save-as operation.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args line. The essential action and usage guideline are front-loaded, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose, usage guideline, and parameter meaning. It is mostly complete, though missing potential details on file overwrite behavior or return value.

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 0%. The description explains the path parameter as 'Absolute path for the new .aup3 file,' adding format and extension context. However, it does not specify constraints like whether the path must be non-existent or how trailing slashes are handled. With one parameter, the added value is modest.

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 states 'Save the current project to a new .aup3 file,' providing a specific verb (save), resource (current project), and result (new .aup3 file). This clearly distinguishes from siblings like project_save.

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?

The description explicitly says 'ONLY call when user explicitly asks. Do NOT auto-save after effects or pipelines.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, preventing unintended invocations.

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