project_save_as

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the file format (.aup3) and that it creates a new file, but omits critical behavioral details: whether it overwrites existing files at the path, and whether the active project context switches to the new file after saving (typical 'Save As' 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?

Three sentences plus Args block with zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage constraints, then parameter details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter file operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers invocation constraints and parameter meaning. Missing only minor behavioral details (overwrite behavior, project context change) that would make it fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage. The Args section compensates by specifying 'Absolute path' and the '.aup3 file' extension requirement, adding necessary constraints not present in the raw schema. Could be improved by noting if extension is auto-appended.

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 ('Save') + resource ('project') + format ('.aup3') + scope ('new file'). The 'save_as' semantics clearly distinguish it from sibling 'project_save' (which implies overwriting current file).

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 constraints: 'ONLY call when user explicitly asks' and 'Do NOT auto-save after effects or pipelines.' Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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