save_part

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect of file_path (existing vs new location) but does not disclose error behavior when overwrite is true and file exists, nor any potential data loss risks. The 'convenience wrapper' label is vague.

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 concise sentences. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds necessary detail. No redundancy.

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 simplicity and presence of output schema, the description covers essential behavior. However, it could mention that it only works for an active part and under what conditions it fails (e.g., no active part).

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 value by explaining the behavior when file_path is omitted versus provided, but the overwrite parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 active SolidWorks part document. It distinguishes from sibling save tools by specifying it operates on the 'active' part, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like save_file or save_as.

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 when saving the active part, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings (e.g., save_assembly). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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