Salvar projeto

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds specific behavior beyond that: it overwrites the destination file if it exists. This is valuable context that the agent would not know from annotations alone, and it does not contradict them.

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 only two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical overwrite warning is concisely presented in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 simple save operation with one required parameter, the description fully covers the action, the destination, and the destructive overwrite behavior. No output schema is present, but none is needed for this tool. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage for the 'destination' parameter with a clear description ('Caminho .smc de destino relativo ao workspace'). The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond what is already in the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action: saves the current project as a .smc file in the workspace. The specific verb 'salva' and resource 'projeto atual' distinguish it from sibling tools like solibri_open_model or solibri_close_project. No ambiguity.

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 warns that the destination is overwritten if it exists, instructing the agent to confirm with the user before use. This is a clear usage condition, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives (none exist). It provides actionable guidance for when to use the tool.

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