Plecs Save

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

Beyond the lone idempotentHint, the description discloses the critical side effect that save_as RENAMES the open model (not a copy), warns the caller to use the new name afterwards, and describes the write policy: install dirs refused and existing targets require overwrite=true. That is substantial non-obvious behavioral context; only rate limits/concurrency and the failure shape are absent.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the highest-value fact (save_as renames rather than copies) is front-loaded in caps. Formatting with backticks aids scanning; minor awkwardness in the trailing parenthetical.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the dangerous write-path rules that the schema cannot. The remaining gap is the undocumented required model_name argument, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 carries the whole burden. It explains save_as well (rename semantics, policy checks) and overwrite (needed for an existing target), but says nothing about the required model_name parameter, leaving one of three parameters completely undocumented.

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 and resource ('Save a model') and immediately qualifies the variant behavior with save_as. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings such as plecs_model_clone or plecs_load, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for save_as (renames the open model) and overwrite (required when the target exists), which implies when each parameter applies. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over plecs_load, plecs_model_clone, or plecs_close, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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