pr_save_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation nature (a save/Cmd+S write to disk) and an implicit precondition that a project must be open, plus timing advice; however it never states what happens if no project is open, whether the save is confirmed, or what the call returns.

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, zero filler: the action first, then the timing constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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, low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to invoke it, which is nearly all an agent needs. Only failure-mode behavior (no open project, save confirmation) is left unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-project action rather than any parameterized save.

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+resource ('Save the open project') and anchors it to the familiar Cmd+S action, so the agent knows exactly what happens. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but 'project' vs. 'frame export' vs. 'batch' semantics make the scope reasonably distinguishable from the surrounding 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions: before exports and before batches of destructive edits, which map onto the pr_export_frame and pr_batch siblings. No when-not or exclusion guidance is offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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