Save As Template

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does it well: engine-dependent output format, document rebinding (SAVEAS side effect), refusal of non-.dwt/.dxf suffixes and out-of-allowed-directory paths before any bytes are written, and `description_written: false` on the DXF route. This is far beyond what the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and the engine split, then the edge cases. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; the trailing 'Pack: core · lean: no' metadata is the only padding.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed. For a save-as mutation with engine divergence, refusals, and a description-loss edge case, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly, including the failure surface.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by tying `description` to the DWT summary Comments and confirming `path` must end in .dwt or .dxf. It does not elaborate on the `name` report parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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+resource (SAVEAS → Drawing Template) and immediately pins the two engines it works on. It explicitly names the sibling `drawing_save_as` and distinguishes itself from it, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: live AutoCAD writes a real `.dwt`, headless writes `.dxf`, and a `.dwt` request is refused with a named capability. It does not, however, spell out when an agent should prefer this over `drawing_save_as`, `drawing_export_dxf`, or `template_apply_layers` as alternatives — that routing is only implied.

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