sd_save_package_as

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by noting 'after explicit confirmation', which signals a safety mechanism. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand an important behavior (confirmation required).

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Save', and contains no redundant wording. Every phrase adds useful context: 'open package', 'absolute .sbs path', 'after explicit confirmation'.

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 save operation with an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description provides adequate context. It covers the core action, target, and confirmation behavior. The only missing piece is the handling of the overwrite flag, but the schema and annotations partially cover that.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the 'package' (open package), 'file_path' (absolute .sbs path), and 'confirm' (explicit confirmation) parameters. However, it does not explain the 'overwrite' parameter or the structure of PackageRef, leaving some param semantics to the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Save'), the resource ('an open package'), the target ('to an absolute .sbs path'), and a key condition ('after explicit confirmation'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'sd_save_package' by emphasizing the 'as' (new path) behavior.

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 implied: use this when you need to save an open package to a specified .sbs path. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'sd_save_package' or mention when one should be chosen over the other. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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