Save the active CATIA document, optionally to a new file path for Save As. This preserves part, assembly, or drawing work.
Save the active CATIA document. Optionally save to a new path (Save As).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No | Optional new file path for Save As |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the target is the active document, but does not say whether Save As silently overwrites an existing file, whether a prompt occurs, or what the result is on failure.
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 core action front-loaded and the optional variant second.
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, non-destructive tool with no output schema and safety fully covered by annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. Missing only the sibling differentiation (save_all) and overwrite behavior.
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% for the single file_path parameter, so the schema already documents it as an optional Save As target. The description repeats that meaning without adding format, path, or overwrite semantics, 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 active CATIA document') plus the variant behavior (Save As). The 'active document' scoping implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling catia_save_all, but that sibling is never named.
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 parenthetical 'Optionally save to a new path (Save As)' implies when to pass a path, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus catia_save_all or what happens if the document is unsaved/never named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.