app-file_save_as

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

Beyond the raw operation, the description discloses that the file becomes active, a behavioral side effect not present in annotations (which are absent). This adds useful context for understanding the tool's side effects, though it doesn't mention potential overwriting or error conditions. Given no annotations, the description carries the burden well.

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 concise, using a single sentence to effectively communicate the tool's purpose and key behavioral nuance. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary details or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main use case and the critical side effect of making the file active. It could mention what happens if the path is invalid or if the file already exists, but given the tool's simplicity, this is likely sufficient.

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?

The single parameter 'path' is clearly outlined by the schema's title ('Absolute output .blend path'), but the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond restating 'absolute path'. Since schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate with extra parameter details (e.g., file extension requirements), the added value is low.

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 uses specific action verbs ('Save') and clearly identifies the resource ('current file') and destination ('new absolute path'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like app-file_save and app-file_save_copy by noting the file 'becomes active', clarifying the operational distinction.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (saving to a new path and making it active) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. It provides enough context for a knowledgeable user but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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