Save As

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains a non-obvious behavior: the on-disk format is derived from the file extension and format only overrides when the extension is unrecognized. This is valuable. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but the core behavioral quirk is well covered.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second delivers the critical format-resolution rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the required path, the optional format override, and the format-resolution edge case. It could additionally mention overwrite semantics, but the essential information needed to call the tool correctly is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema by clarifying that the extension is authoritative and by giving a concrete example ('part.dxf' writes DXF, not DWG). This helps the agent understand the relationship between path and format more deeply.

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 states a specific verb ('Save'), a clear resource ('current drawing'), and the distinguishing scope ('to a new path/format'), listing the supported formats DWG, DXF, and DWT. This differentiates it cleanly from siblings like drawing_save and drawing_export_dxf without needing to inspect schemas.

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 clearly signals that this tool is for saving to a new path/format, which implies the appropriate use case versus drawing_save. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as drawing_export_dxf, but the 'new path/format' framing plus the format-resolution detail provides clear contextual guidance.

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