Save Project

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the concrete consequences behind that: disk files are overwritten, edits made on disk can be lost in one specific ordering, the IDE must be running with the project open, and the exact return strings including the two-second no-change window.

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, each doing distinct work: mechanism, when to call, when not to call, plus a precondition. It is dense rather than padded, though the precondition about the IDE running could have been folded into the opening sentence for tighter front-loading.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, preconditions, return values, and the dangerous ordering relative to revert_project — everything an agent needs to call it safely.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact mechanism: writes the IDE's in-memory copy over the project's files on disk. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like set_code, edit_code, or revert_project that touch either memory or disk alone.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (after IDE-side edits from set_code/edit_code/create_project_item should persist, and before editing on disk a file changed through the IDE), explicit when-not (never between a disk edit and revert_project, since it would overwrite the disk edit), and it names the sibling that plays the alternative role.

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