save_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that no dialog opens, library and Content Center files are never written, changed dependents are saved one by one first, skipped files are avoided to prevent rewriting shared libraries, and the tool returns saved and skipped files.

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 front-loaded with the core operation and safety constraints, then structured into an Args section that maps directly to the parameters. The length is justified by the mutation's behavioral complexity, and the explanation about Inventor marking standard parts dirty earns its place by clarifying why library files are skipped.

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 that there are no annotations and the tool is a document-saving mutation with dependent-file implications, the description provides everything needed to call it correctly. It covers path validation, overwrite behavior, dependent saving, library-file exclusions, and return contents; the presence of an output schema means return values need not be described further.

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?

Although schema description coverage is only 25%, the description explains the key parameters in detail: path behavior including saving in place, overwrite semantics for existing files not open in Inventor, and save_dependents behavior with its Save2(False) implication. The instance parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the description compensates well for the low overall coverage.

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: saving the active document. It also distinguishes the operation from related actions by clarifying that it never opens a dialog and never writes library or Content Center files, so an agent can understand its scope without opening the schema.

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 gives clear usage context: empty path saves in place, overwrite replaces an existing file at the path, and save_dependents controls whether changed dependents are saved. However, it does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives such as export_document or close_unsaved, so sibling selection guidance remains implicit.

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