femm_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses extension auto-appending, absolute vs relative path resolution against the work dir, and the default filename for a new model. It omits overwrite semantics (e.g., what happens to an existing file), permission/auth requirements, and the return value.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the path branch, default fallback, and the femm_solve cross-reference each earn their 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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key decision (pass a path or not), the default target, and the relationship to femm_solve. Only minor gaps remain: the undocumented `session` parameter and overwrite/error 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 0%, so the description must compensate. `path` is thoroughly explained (absolute or relative, extension added if missing, default behavior when omitted), but the second parameter `session` is never mentioned, leaving a gap in the parameter contract.

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 and resource ('Save the current model') and even names the underlying API call (xi_saveas). It also distinguishes itself from femm_solve by noting that solve auto-saves, so an agent can tell these two apart without reading schemas.

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?

Clearly explains the behavioral branch: with `path` you target a specific file, without `path` you re-save the current file or fall back to <work_dir>/model.<ext>. It also tells the agent that femm_solve saves automatically, implying an explicit save is often unnecessary. It does not, however, contrast with other persistence siblings like femm_export_dxf or femm_export_pyfemm_script.

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