project_save_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose overwrite refusal by default and warns against auto-saveing. However, it doesn't clarify save-as semanics such as whether the current project becomes associated with the new file, or describe error/return behavior when the path exists and overwrite is false.

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 short, information-dense sentences front-load the core operation and guardrail, then give exactly the two parameter meanings needed. No wasted words.

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 two-parametr tool, this is nearly complete: it covers file type, path form, overwrite behavior, and when not to call. No output schema exists, so a sentence about expected orror/success feedback 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 description coverage is 0%, so the parameter docs in the description are esential. It exptains that path must be an absolute path, and clarifies overwrite means replacing an existing file and that replacement is refused by default — meaning thatn beyond the schema's bare boolean default.

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?

Opening sentence names the exact action and resource: 'Save the current project to a new .aup4 file.' The 'new' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from project_save, which is present in the sibling list.

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 gives explicit when-if-appropriate guidance: 'ONLY call when the user explicitly asks - do NOT auto-save after effects or pipelines.' It lacks an explicit alternative such as project_save, so it's not a full 5.

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