save

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about save report contents (AI revisions, package-level mutations) and Google Docs checkpoint vs snapshot. However, it does not explicitly discuss side effects like file overwriting or the impact of the 'allow_overwrite' parameter, which would enhance transparency.

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 somewhat verbose and jumps between format-specific details. It could be more concise and better structured, but it does front-load the main purpose with 'Save document'. Overall adequate but not streamlined.

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?

Given the complexity of 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (save report) in detail, the difference between checkpoint and snapshot for Google Docs in terms of agent expectations, or how to handle tracked changes versus AI revisions. Missing guidance on when to use this tool versus related siblings.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 40%, the description should compensate but fails to explain most parameters. It mentions save_format indirectly via 'clean and/or tracked changes' but does not describe parameters like allow_overwrite, clean_bookmarks, save_to_local_path, or tracked_save_to_local_path. The parameter semantics are largely missing.

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 document' and elaborates on specific behaviors for DOCX, ODT, and Google Docs, including different save modes (clean/tracked/both) and checkpoint vs snapshot. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export' or 'accept_ai_edits', which have overlapping functions.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'export' or 'close_file'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or explicit alternatives.

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