Save File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a save and mentions an optional Save As variant, but it does not say whether the operation overwrites existing files, what happens if no path is given and no current file exists, which of the two path parameters takes precedence, or whether a lens must be loaded first. Significant gaps remain.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and the optional variation efficiently.

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 tool with two documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits important context such as the difference between 'path' and 'filePath', the conditions under which 'Save As' is triggered, and whether the operation requires an open file, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both 'path' (legacy optional destination path) and 'filePath' (optional destination path). The description adds nothing about the distinction, precedence, or format of these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('current lens'), clearly distinguishing it from unrelated siblings like zemax_get_system or zemax_run_analysis. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named zemax_save_merit_function_file, but the resource 'lens' is unambiguous.

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 implies usage ('Save the current lens') and hints at an optional Save As mode, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives. Usage is inferable from the tool name and context, which meets the minimum viable threshold.

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