save_sprite_as

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

The description notes that the original file is left untouched and explains the overwrite parameter's default behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or return values. With no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be better.

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 very concise, starting with the core purpose and adding essential details without waste. Each sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error scenarios, and file path requirements, which an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 description explains only the 'overwrite' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, it should describe more parameters. 'filename' and 'new_filename' are not explained, and 'flatten' is only mentioned implicitly.

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 tool's action ('save a copy of a sprite under a new path, optionally flattened') and distinguishes it from siblings like export functions and flatten_sprite by emphasizing it creates a copy rather than modifying or exporting.

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 for when to use the tool ('exporting an editable .aseprite to another .aseprite, or snapshotting a version') but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternative tools.

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