save_rig_as_new

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds the failure mode of rejecting a duplicate name. However it does not say whether the currently loaded rig is renamed in place or left untouched as a copy, which is the key behavioral ambiguity for a save-as operation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the failure condition. There is no redundant wording or restating of schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with a single required parameter. The remaining gap is the lack of differentiation from save_loaded_rig and the unstated effect on the currently loaded rig's name.

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 0%, so the single string parameter "name" carries no documentation in the schema. The description partially compensates by implying the name must not already exist, but adds nothing about naming format, length limits, or allowed characters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Save the loaded rig") plus a scoping qualifier ("under a new name"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling save_loaded_rig, leaving the agent to infer which save variant to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "under a new name" suggests this is the variant to use when a distinct copy is wanted, but no condition is stated for choosing it over save_loaded_rig or load_rig. The explicit exclusion it does give ("Refused if the name already exists") is a precondition, not routing guidance.

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