Save Project

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the critical safety behavior that it refuses to overwrite the board file if externally modified unless force is true. This adds meaningful context that annotations alone do not capture, and clarifies the scope (current project).

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the primary purpose and the one critical guardrail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the core save behavior and the force condition. It does not need to describe return values due to the output schema, and parameter interactions are mostly captured by the schema, though it leaves the relationship between force and forceExternalChanges slightly implicit.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description only restates the force behavior already present in the schema, without adding extra meaning for the path, overwrite, or forceExternalChanges parameters. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Save the current KiCAD project' with a specific verb and resource, and 'current' distinguishes it from save_as (new path) and save_board (board-only). It also hints at the unique force behavior, making it distinct from 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?

The description implies this is the standard save operation and notes the force parameter for handling external edits, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like save_as or save_board. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so usage context is implied rather than clearly directed.

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