save_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the persistence target and format version ('project JSON file on disk', 'cad-mcp-project v1'), but omits whether an existing file is overwritten, permission/auth requirements, and error behavior for an invalid path.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, target, and format all present and zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter persistence tool with no annotations and no output schema, the minimal description is close to sufficient – the format disclosure helps. It still leaves overwrite semantics and the meaning of 'current scene' (active document vs. all documents) unstated.

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 0% and the lone 'path' parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. 'To a project JSON file on disk' does clarify that path is a filesystem destination rather than an in-project identifier, but adds no format, extension, or absolute/relative-path guidance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Save the current scene') and the concrete artifact produced ('project JSON file on disk'), with a format identifier (cad-mcp-project v1). It is clearly distinguishable from load_project/open_project/new_project by the write-direction verb, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. An agent must infer that this is for persisting the current scene rather than loading or creating one; nothing addresses ordering relative to load_project/new_project or whether unsaved changes matter.

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