wps_et_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavior: omitting path on an unsaved workbook triggers an error (with mitigation documented), and the path is subject to sandbox restrictions. This goes beyond a simple 'save' statement. Missing details on return value or side effects, but the key behavioral risks are addressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the second provides critical usage and behavioral details. 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 simple save operation with no output schema, the description covers usage and behavioral constraints well. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success, path, error), which leaves the agent guessing about the outcome. This is a notable gap given the lack of output schema.

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 100% (one parameter with description). The tool description adds value by explaining the parameter's necessity for first saves, the consequence of not providing it, and the sandbox context. This goes beyond the schema's brief description.

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 clearly states the tool saves the current workbook (wps_et_save for WPS spreadsheet). It distinguishes from sibling save tools by specifying '当前工作簿' (current workbook) and the ET context, while siblings like wps_word_save target different document types.

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 explicitly explains when to use the path parameter (first-time save) and warns about the native dialog freeze if omitted. It also mentions the WPS sandbox restriction and suggests using ~/Downloads. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare with other save tools, though the sibling context makes this clear.

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