save_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose useful traits: the save is silent, the result is verified by checking the file was actually written, and omitting path overwrites the document's own file. It does not say whether a supplied path overwrites an existing file, whether save-as changes the active document, or whether an unsaved document without a path errors out.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the cross-reference to drawings placed last.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential behavior and failure-checking. The remaining gap is overwrite/first-save failure semantics for an unsaved document passed no path.

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 compensate for the single undocumented parameter, and it does: path means save-as to that location, omission means save over the current file. It stops short of noting accepted path formats or whether the extension is inferred from the document type.

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) plus the resources it acts on (current part .sldprt or assembly .sldasm), and the two destination modes. An agent can immediately tell this apart from export, close_document, or drawing_file.

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?

Explicitly covers when to use it (part/assembly) and routes the drawing case to the sibling drawing_file(action='save'), which is the correct alternative. No ambiguity about which tool handles which document type.

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