Save the active Packet Tracer network to a .pkt file, with explicit overwrite control to prevent accidental data loss.
Save the active network as .pkt; overwrite is explicit. / 保存当前网络，覆盖须明确指定。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute .pkt output path; parent must exist. / pkt输出路径。 | |
| overwrite | No | Replace an existing output. / 覆盖已有文件。 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuine context beyond that: that overwriting must be explicitly requested rather than defaulting, which tells the agent how to avoid data loss.
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 short clauses, zero waste, with the key safety fact (explicit overwrite) front-loaded alongside the core action. The bilingual duplication does not add length in substance.
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 two-parameter save operation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what is missing, notably the overwrite-explicitness rule and parent-directory constraint. Nothing critical is absent.
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 both path and overwrite are fully documented in the schema, including the absolute-path and parent-exists constraint. The description adds only the explicit-overwrite framing, which is a marginal increment over the schema.
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 (save) and resource (active network) plus the output format (.pkt). It is clearly distinct from pt_new_network and pt_open_network, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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?
"Overwrite is explicit" communicates that replacing an existing file requires deliberate action, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this versus pt_new_network/pt_open_network, so the when-to-use logic is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.