gsa_save_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it saves the current model to a supplied path, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, permission requirements, whether the current file path changes, or error handling for invalid paths.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a one-parameter save-as tool, it is appropriately sized and wastes no words.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, an undocumented parameter, and the side-effecting nature of a save operation, the description is incomplete. It omits key details an agent needs to invoke it safely, such as overwrite behavior and path format expectations.

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 'filename' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description calls it a 'supplied path,' which adds a hint about destination, but it does not clarify whether the value is a filename, full path, relative path, or expected extension, and the mismatch between 'filename' and 'path' adds ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb ('save') and resource ('current model') and names the destination ('supplied path'), which distinguishes it from the sibling gsa_save that saves in place. However, it does not name the sibling or explicitly contrast the two, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gsa_save or gsa_save_view_to_file. The description implies usage only through the 'as' semantics and the required filename parameter, leaving prerequisites and exclusions unstated.

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