app-file_save

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

With no annotations, description carries burden. It states main behavior (save current file, or to path if unsaved) and implies path is ignored if already saved. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, error handling, or other side effects. It's minimal but not contradictory.

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 sentence, clear and concise, front-loaded with action. No unnecessary details, easy to parse.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, description is adequate for a simple save operation, but there are many sibling save tools, and it doesn't explicitly differentiate. It covers the essential behavior but lacks nuance about edge cases or return values.

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 covers the path parameter with a clear title, and description indirectly explains its usage in the unsaved case. Description does not directly name the parameter but adds context on when it's needed. Since schema coverage is 0%, description compensates somewhat, but not fully as it doesn't specify format or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the action (save) and resource (current file), with a conditional for unsaved files. It distinguishes from siblings like save_as by implying it saves without changing the file's location except for unsaved files.

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?

Description gives context on when to use (save current file, with path if unsaved) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing to save_as or save_copy. It's not misleading, but no exclusions provided.

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