save_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool saves the active document and handles forced saves, but does not detail side effects like overwriting behavior, error handling, or requirements (e.g., document must be open). Lacks depth.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose, scope, and key parameter effect. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with essential 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?

For a simple save tool with an output schema present, the description covers main behavior. It could mention error conditions (e.g., no active document) or consequences of overwriting, but overall adequate given tool simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for force_save ('Handles both modified and unmodified documents based on force_save setting'), but does not elaborate on file_path beyond what schema says. Some added value but limited.

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 tool saves the current SolidWorks model/document. It specifies the verb 'save' and resource 'current SolidWorks model', and distinguishes from siblings like save_as by emphasizing saving to an existing file location.

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 for preserving work and version control, and mentions handling based on force_save. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like save_as, save_part, or save_assembly, lacking exclusion guidance.

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