Save the active document to a new path or overwrite an existing file, with confirmation to prevent data loss.
Save the current document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | No | Optional: Save as new file path | |
| confirmDestructive | No | REQUIRED: Confirm overwrite of existing files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'save', but does not explain side effects (e.g., overwriting without confirmation), requirements (confirmDestructive), or return behavior. The schema description of confirmDestructive hints at overwrite, but the tool description itself is silent on these behaviors.
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?
The description is a single sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is maximally concise and front-loaded with the core action and object.
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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely underspecified. It lacks information about return values, error cases, what happens when filePath is omitted, or the role of confirmDestructive. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.
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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('the current document'), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from all sibling tools (no other save operation exists). It is immediately obvious what the tool does.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., a document must be open). There is no mention of typical use cases or conditions, leaving the agent to infer when saving is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.