ae_save_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. 'Save' implies writing to disk, but the description does not state overwrite behavior, whether saving to a new path changes the project's working path, or what happens if no project is open. These are meaningful behavioral facts for a mutating 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 one short, front-loaded sentence containing exactly the essential action and resource. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

As a simple one-parameter save command, the description is minimally viable, and the schema covers the output_path semantics. It is not fully complete because it omits behavioral consequences and explicit usage guidance, but the low complexity keeps this from being a severe gap.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter output_path with 'Optional: save to a new path. Null to save in place,' so parameter semantics are already well covered. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('save') and a specific resource ('the current After Effects project'), making the tool's function unambiguous. No sibling tool covers project saving, so an agent can select this tool without inspecting other tools.

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 command 'save the current After Effects project' implies the primary use case: persist the active project's current state. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to save in place versus saving to output_path, nor does it contrast this with related operations such as collecting files or running scripts.

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