fablecut_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: open saves the current project first and reloads editor tabs, delete is restricted to archived projects, and duplicates/templates copy no footage because media/ is shared. Gaps remain on whether delete is permanent, what archive means to the user, and error 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?

Concept and the ./project.json relationship are front-loaded, then actions are enumerated in a compact ·-separated list, with the safety caveat last. It is dense and run-on in places, but the tightness is justified by 11 actions and 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?

For an 11-param, 11-action mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics: defaults, shared-media behavior, side effects of open, and delete safety. It omits return-value detail and error conditions, which would matter given the absence of an output schema.

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 cross-parameter meaning the schema can't: which params apply to which action, that archived:'only'|'all' exposes archived projects, that template accepts built-in canvas names or a saved template id, and that open defaults differ for new (true) vs duplicate (false).

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 opening sentence names the resource (the projects dashboard) and the multi-action scope, and the follow-up sentence positions ./project.json as the OPEN project every other tool reads and edits. An agent can tell immediately this is the project-management hub rather than an editor-content tool like fablecut_get_project or fablecut_patch_project.

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?

It states the default action (list) and gives an explicit exclusion: 'only open, archive or delete when the user asked for it.' It also routes forward by noting the next fablecut_get_project call reads the newly opened project. What's missing is explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over fablecut_set_project/fablecut_get_project for project-level vs. content-level work.

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