Save hip

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful detail that omitting the path overwrites the current file rather than doing nothing. It does not disclose overwrite/confirmation behavior for an existing target path or any failure modes, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, the primary action front-loaded and the parameter behavior immediately after. No filler, no restating of the title.

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?

An output schema exists and the tool is a one-parameter operation, so the description covers nearly everything an agent needs. The only omission is path format or overwrite-on-existing-file semantics, which is minor for this complexity.

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 the load, and it does explain the single optional parameter's meaning and default: providing it triggers save-as, omitting it saves the current file. It stops short of path format expectations (absolute vs relative, extension), which keeps it from a 5.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Save the current hip file'), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling load_hip. It does not explicitly name an alternative or clarify scope further (e.g. whether unsaved scene state is flushed), but the core purpose 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?

It states the two usage modes explicitly: supply a path for save-as, omit it to save in place over the current file. That is clear operational guidance for the only decision an agent has to make, though it never mentions when to prefer load_hip or what happens on a fresh unsaved scene.

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