raw_save_copy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does warn that the action may open a dialog or change project state, which is a meaningful side-effect disclosure. It stops short of specifying overwrite behavior or prerequisites.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by scope and risk. The phrase 'inspect the command name first' is slightly vague, but the description remains efficient and focused.

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 zero-parameter action the description gives purpose and a side-effect warning, but it omits sibling differentiation and specific outcome details such as destination, overwrite behavior, or confirmation. The 'inspect the command name first' instruction suggests the description is not fully self-contained.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'no-argument' statement reinforces that no inputs are expected, though it mostly restates what the empty schema already conveys.

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 the operation precisely: save a lossless copy of the project. 'Lossless' distinguishes it from compressed save variants, and the 'copy' wording separates it from plain save/save-as 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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It only notes that it is a static no-argument action; an agent must infer when this tool is preferable to raw_save, raw_save_as, or project_save_as.

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