plasticity_save_copy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and 'without overwriting' is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds the useful constraint that existing files are not clobbered, but says nothing about failure behavior when the target exists, whether the working document's path changes after the copy, or where relative paths resolve.

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?

One tight sentence with the key qualifier ('without overwriting') placed correctly at the end. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably thin for a tool that writes to disk.

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 one-parameter file-write tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimally adequate. The remaining gap — path resolution and behavior when the destination already exists, which matters for a non-destructive save — is not addressed anywhere since there is no output schema.

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% for the single required `path` parameter, so the description must carry the meaning. It hints the target is a .plasticity file but never explains path format (absolute vs relative), whether the extension is appended automatically, or whether the path must not already exist.

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 (Save) and resource (current document to a new .plasticity file), and the 'without overwriting' clause clarifies the operation's scope. It does not name or differentiate itself from any sibling (e.g. plasticity_open_document or the various export_* tools), though none of those is a direct competing save.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for producing a copy rather than mutating the working document in place. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as capture_snapshot or export_step for other output formats.

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