save_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool saves a document but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., if path is invalid), if it closes the original document, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise while conveying the core action. Every part of the sentence 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error conditions, or provide sufficient context for safe and effective use. For a 'save as' operation, more detail is needed.

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 50% (only 'path' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose. It doesn't explain 'overwrite' behavior or provide context for 'path' format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, resulting in inadequate parameter documentation.

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 ('저장합니다' - saves) and resource ('현재 문서' - current document) with specific scope ('다른 이름으로' - with another name). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_document' by focusing on saving an existing document rather than creating a new one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'open_document' or 'set_workspace'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have an open document), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'create_document' for new documents or 'open_document' for loading existing ones. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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