ai_saveDocument

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write nature and sandboxing are covered. The description adds the meaningful 'optionally close' side effect but never says whether an existing file at path is overwritten or whether closing can discard unsaved changes in other documents.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary mode (save in place) and the target app context front-loaded; nothing is padded. It is slightly telegraphic, reading almost like notes rather than prose, which costs clarity at the margins.

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 4-parameter, zero-required, non-output-schema save tool, the description covers the two core modes, the format enum's practical meaning, and the optional close. Missing only the default-format and overwrite/discard behaviors, which are genuine but secondary omissions.

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 only 25% (only 'document' is documented in-schema), so the description must carry weight, and it does explain path, close, and the intent of each format value ('ai' is PDF-compatible and best for After Effects import). It omits the default format when path is given without format, and overwrite semantics for path.

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 concrete verb (save) plus the resource and the mutually exclusive modes: in-place versus save-as to a specific path with a named format set. An agent immediately knows it writes an Illustrator document. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from ai_export, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'save in place, or save as ... to path' implicitly tells the agent that omitting path yields an in-place save, and the After Effects note guides format choice. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer ai_export over this tool, nor any warning about pairing close with unsaved work.

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