Save project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so overwrite risk is flagged structurally, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own (no overwrite warning, no undo/irreversibility note, no permission requirements). With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes essentially nothing beyond restating the name.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the Save As affordance front-loaded. Nothing wasted.

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 simple two-parameter save tool with 100% schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the definition is largely complete; the only real gap is that overwrite/irreversibility context is left entirely to the annotation rather than being reinforced in text.

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 100% and the `path` description already explains the Save As behavior and the never-saved error. The description merely repeats a subset ('Pass `path` for Save As') without adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Save the project') and distinguishes the Save As variant via the `path` argument. Clear enough for an agent, though there is no need for sibling differentiation since no other tool in the list saves.

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 line 'Pass `path` for Save As' implies when to supply the argument, but the description itself gives no when-not guidance or note about the failure case; that context lives only in the schema's parameter description.

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