wps_wpp_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 different behavior for unsaved vs. already-saved documents, the risk of a freezable dialog (and current mitigation), and the path sandbox constraint. This is substantial behavioral transparency for a save operation.

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 in Chinese, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 single-parameter save tool with no output schema, the description covers the key edge cases and restrictions. It could mention what happens on success (e.g., saved file location) but the core context is adequately covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: clarifies that 'path' is mandatory for first-time saves and explains the consequence of omitting it (dialog freeze, now an error). This enriches the parameter semantics.

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 presentation (保存当前演示文稿), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only presentation save tool among many WPS tools.

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 provides critical usage context: when the document has never been saved, the 'path' parameter is mandatory; otherwise, saving triggers a 'Save As' dialog that could freeze the process (now detected). It also warns about the WPS sandbox restriction on paths and suggests using ~/Downloads. This gives clear when-to-use guidance.

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