Project save

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects the hints do not capture: the CHID is renamed to the file name (GEN-009) and result files follow it, saving writes files on this PC, and overwrite=true is gated on prior user agreement (GEN-014). The idempotentHint=true claim is consistent with the described save semantics rather than contradicted by them.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and default behavior come first, then path/overwrite rules, then side effects and the write-permission caveat. The trailing rule-code references (GEN-006/010/016) are terse and require external lookup, which costs a little readability.

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 2-param save tool with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers default behavior, path validation, overwrite gating, side effects, and environment limits. It does not say what a successful call returns, and several cited rule codes are opaque without a bulc_knowledge_search lookup, leaving minor 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 already 100%, but the description adds real constraints the schema omits: a new path must end in .bulc, and replacement only occurs with overwrite=true. The default behavior of omitting path is restated rather than merely repeated, giving slightly more than the baseline 3.

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 ('Save the open project') and enumerates exactly what the .bulc bundle contains, analogizing to 'File > Save'. This clearly separates it from export-shaped siblings like project_export_fds, shape_export_stl, and project_open.

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 selection conditions: omit path to save over the current .bulc, supply a new path ending in .bulc to save elsewhere, and set overwrite=true only to replace an existing file. 'Live app only' is a useful precondition. It never names an alternative tool (e.g. project_export_fds) when a different output format is wanted, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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