save_copy

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the original file is preserved, that the copy becomes the active document for the window, subsequent saves, and run_analysis, and that the filename is generated with a product-specific extension. What it leaves implicit is the mechanics of the confirm/preview step, e.g. that the token must come from the preview call and whether it expires.

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?

Front-loads the core action and endpoint in the first line, then adds behavioral context. The 'Like Save As in NX' analogy and the long clause about window/later saves/run_analysis carry real information but are wordier than necessary.

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 mutation with no output schema, this covers the essentials: what is created, where it goes, how it's named, what happens to the original, and why an agent would reach for it (priming a document for run_analysis). Nothing critical is missing to call it safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it maps the product parameter to its two enum values and their resulting extensions (.mgbx for Gen, .mcbz for Civil), and the 'preview, then apply' phrasing implies confirm_token gates the second step. It could be more explicit that confirm_token is the value obtained from the preview response.

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 model as a new file in the output folder') and even the backing endpoint (POST /doc/SAVEAS). It further disambiguates the intent by noting this is also the only route to give a never-saved document a file, so an agent can tell it apart from ordinary persistence in run_analysis.

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?

Gives clear context: 'Two steps: preview, then apply' and 'also the way to give a never-saved document a file, which run_analysis needs.' That tells the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite for run_analysis. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming a sibling that accomplishes the same result instead.

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