project_save_as

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

No annotations are provided. The description only says 'Save project to new path' but does not disclose if it overwrites existing files, whether the original project remains open, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise—one sentence plus an Args line. No wasted words. It could be slightly more structured with a plain description before the Args, but it is efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description still lacks crucial context: what happens to the current project after saving? Does it become the new path? Is the original left open? The context is incomplete for safe usage.

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 description adds 'Absolute .rpp path' which clarifies the parameter format beyond the schema (which only specifies 'string'). However, it does not specify constraints like file existence, extension requirements, or path conventions. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but not fully.

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 project to new path' which is a clear verb+resource. The name 'project_save_as' strongly implies creating a copy under a new name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_save and project_open. However, it could be more precise about whether the current project becomes the new path.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs project_save or project_new. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or when not to use. The description only states the action without context.

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