save_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that saving can target the existing `.FCStd` path or a new location, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, what happens when the document is not open, or side effects on the on-disk file. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 well-formed sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a two-parameter mutation tool, but every clause carries information.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, no required parameters, and both parameters defaulting to empty strings, the description should explain default resolution — what happens when `path` is blank and how `doc_name` picks a document. Those gaps are material for a write operation that could silently overwrite a file.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only covers `path` ("a new destination `path`"). `doc_name` is never mentioned, and the empty-string defaults are unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether omitting `path` saves in place or whether `doc_name` selects the document versus the active one.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Save an open document") plus the two destination modes (existing `.FCStd` path or a new `path`). It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as `export_document` or `create_document`, so the boundary between saving and exporting is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "an open document" signals a precondition, and "or a new destination" hints at save-as versus save-in-place. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of `export_document` as the alternative for format conversion.

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