Saves the current song as a .ceol file, with an optional path and overwrite flag, so compositions persist because songs are not saved automatically.
Saves the song as a .ceol file. Songs aren't saved automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Where to save it. Can be left out if the song already has a file. | |
| overwrite | No | Must be true to replace an existing file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that songs are not autosaved and that the output is a .ceol file, but it does not elaborate on overwrite behavior or other destructive implications beyond what the schema states.
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?
The description is two short sentences with zero waste, and the primary action is front-loaded. The autosave caveat is directly relevant and appropriately brief.
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 two-parameter save tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what it does, the file format, and that persistence is manual. The main remaining gap is sibling routing against tools like export_song, but nothing critical to invocation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema: path indicates where to save, and overwrite indicates whether replacement is allowed. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the file format, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: it saves the song, and it specifies the output as a .ceol file. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as export_song or create_song, but the core purpose is clear.
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 line 'Songs aren't saved automatically' implies that this tool is needed to persist work, but it does not explicitly say when to use save_song versus export_song, open_song, or other related tools. Usage is inferable rather than clearly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.