save_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the behavior of the optional path parameter, including first-save handling, copy creation, and in-place saving. It could further mention overwriting or failure states if no project is open, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

One sentence with no filler. Each clause delivers necessary information: the action, the path format, the two scenarios for providing a path, and the behavior when empty. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: how to save, copy, and save in place. Additional details like return values are unnecessary for a save operation.

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 0% and the schema only provides a default value. The description fully compensates by explaining that path must end in .stu, when it should be provided, and what leaving it empty does. This is complete parameter semantics for the single argument.

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 states the exact verb and resource: 'Save the open project.' It further clarifies three distinct scenarios: first save, saving a copy under a new name, and saving in place. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from siblings like export_project or close_project.

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?

Clear usage guidance is provided for when to pass a path versus leaving it empty, including the required .stu extension. The description does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for a simple save operation.

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