gh_save_file

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

Description provides minimal behavioral context beyond repeating the tool's purpose. With readOnlyHint=false (mutation), the description should disclose side effects (e.g., overwrites existing file), file format assumptions, and whether a path is required if no active file. These are absent.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence. For a simple tool this is efficient, but it sacrifices detail. Could be improved with a brief note on behavior (e.g., overwrite warning).

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits important context: what happens if no active definition, whether it overwrites without confirmation, file format, and the return value (output schema exists but is not described). Incomplete for reliable automated use.

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 includes a description for the 'path' parameter that clarifies it defaults to the open file. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definition. Schema coverage is reported as 0% but the parameter description exists and is helpful.

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?

Clear verb ('Save') and resource ('active Grasshopper definition') are stated. Distinguishes from sibling gh_open_file by focusing on saving rather than opening. However, 'active' could be ambiguous—does it mean the currently open file?—and no differentiation from other potential save 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gh_open_file or rhino_save. The description does not specify prerequisites (e.g., a Grasshopper document must be open) or cases where saving might fail.

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