save_document

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

Beyond the annotations (which already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true), the description discloses non-obvious behavior: format is inferred from the extension, relative paths are confined to the projects folder, missing folders are auto-created, and the save is rejected on an existing file unless overwrite is True. The one gap is that it never explains what happens when path is omitted (the documented default).

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 core action is front-loaded, then path semantics, then the overwrite rule — a sensible order with no filler. The parenthetical extension list is slightly noisy but earns its place by showing the format-inference behavior concretely.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in the operational edges (format inference, sandboxing, overwrite rejection). The unexplained empty-path default and the ambiguous boundary with export_document are the remaining gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full load, and it does: 'path' is explained as a save/export target whose format derives from the extension, plus relative-path confinement and folder creation; 'overwrite' is explained as a hard requirement for existing files. Both parameters gain meaning unavailable in the bare schema.

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 and resource ('Saves the active document') and immediately qualifies it with export semantics keyed off the file extension. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling export_document, which overlaps substantially with the 'exports to that file' behavior described here.

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 concrete preconditions for the overwrite parameter and the relative-path/projects-folder rule, which guides invocation. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over export_document or why omit path entirely, leaving the main routing decision implicit.

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