ap_project_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses the critical deferred-save behavior ('queued' vs 'written'), the specific failure code 'no_project', and the recommended way to confirm the write actually landed.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose comes first, followed by the failure condition and alternative, then the critical deferred-save caveat. Each sentence adds necessary information and the most important behavioral warning is prominently capitalized.

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 zero-parameter save operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the operation, the failure mode, the sibling alternative, the deferred nature, and a verification path. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially fully covered, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds meaningful semantic context by explaining that 'the current project' and 'its existing path' are the implicit inputs, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 a specific verb ('Save'), a clear resource ('the current project'), and a precise target ('its existing path'). It also distinguishes itself from ap_project_save_as by explicitly naming when that sibling should be used instead.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool when the project already has a path, and use ap_project_save_as first if it has never been saved. It also recommends ap_fs_stat as a verification step after saving, giving the agent a concrete follow-up action.

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