Fl Save Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior (opening the Save dialog for unsaved projects) and mentions it's via FL's transport command. However, it does not mention that saving overwrites an existing file without a confirmation prompt, nor does it describe any potential side effects like blocking or error conditions. It's adequate but leaves out some behavioral nuance.

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 that states the core action first, then adds a parenthetical with the important edge-case behavior. Every word earns its place; there's no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple save operation with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the special case of unsaved projects. It doesn't explain the return value, but the output schema handles that. The only gap is the lack of explicit mention that existing files are overwritten without prompting, which is standard for a save action and arguably expected.

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 has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to, which 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 the action ('Save the project to its .flp') with a specific resource (.flp file). It also mentions the keyboard shortcut (Ctrl+S) and the transport command, which distinguishes it from other project-related tools like fl_project_set or fl_transport_command. It's unambiguous and specific.

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?

The description provides context by noting that it uses FL's transport command and that an unsaved new project will open FL's Save dialog. While there are no direct sibling save tools to contrast with, this guidance helps the agent understand when the tool will prompt for a file path versus when it saves silently. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but given the unique save purpose, that's acceptable.

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