raw_save_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state,' which is important for a save operation. It doesn't describe cancellation behavior or file-path switching, but the key side effects are flagged.

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?

Three short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is somewhat jargon-heavy and 'inspect the command name first' is vague, but there is no wasted content.

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 no-argument tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and side effects and gives a caution. It leaves the 'inspect the command name first' instruction unexplained and doesn't explicitly compare against sibling save tools, but the core invocation context is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers this 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description appropriately adds none.

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 current project under a new name.' The current-project plus new-name framing clearly distinguishes this from raw_save (save) and raw_save_copy (save a copy), even without naming them.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool: when the current project should be saved under a new name. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like project_save_as or raw_save_copy, but the framing gives enough guidance for a no-argument tool.

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