save_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The caveat about requiring initial save via UI is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the obvious 'save' meaning. However, it does not clarify whether the save overwrites an existing file at the new path, preserves the original file, or how the active document state changes after the operation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is stated immediately and the caveat is appended as a separate sentence. Appropriately concise.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and a key pitfall (initial UI save requirement). However, it leaves the path format/semantics unexplained and does not address overwrite behavior, which are the main unknowns an agent would face when invoking this tool.

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% and the description provides no additional meaning for the 'path' parameter beyond the schema's field label. It does not specify whether the path must be absolute or relative, which file formats are valid, or whether the path refers to a file versus a folder.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource+action ('Save the active document to a new path') that clearly defines what the tool does and naturally distinguishes it from the sibling 'save' tool. No ambiguity about the function.

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?

Mentions that Fusion's MCP may still require initial save via UI, which is useful contextual guidance about when this tool may not fully work. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to choose save_as over the sibling 'save' tool or when the UI fallback is needed.

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