save_as_dwg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about explicitly reporting read-only states and explaining the .dwl lock file cause, which counters a cryptic failure. However, it does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing files, required permissions, or success response details, leaving some behavior undisclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding a specific edge case. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action and an important failure mode (read-only lock), making it considerably more complete than a bare 'save as DWG'. It could mention overwrite semantics, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 schema has one parameter `path` with no description coverage (0%). The description merely repeats 'to path' without elaborating on the expected format, relative vs. absolute paths, extension handling, or whether .dwg is auto-appended. With no parameter documentation in the schema, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 'Save the drawing as DWG (2018) to path' with a specific verb, format, version, and destination. This distinguishes it from siblings like save_drawing, export_dxf, and export_pdf, which are implied by the format specification.

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 provides useful context about the read-only lock file scenario and the resulting error, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like save_drawing or export_dxf. The intended use is implied by the DWG format mention, but no direct comparison or exclusion is offered.

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