save_project_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'Saves' but doesn't disclose what happens to the original project (copy vs. rename), whether the original is closed or replaced, or if there are any side effects like requiring a confirmed overwrite. This is a mutation with minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the core action efficiently. No fluff or repetition—perfect length for the information provided.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only minimal parameter documentation. The description omits critical context like whether the original project is preserved, if the save operation replaces the current one, or what happens on errors. For a state-changing tool, this is insufficient.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters (name and location). The description matches the schema ('new name and location') but adds no extra meaning about constraints, formats, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Saves') and resource ('current project') with a clear outcome (new name and location). It distinguishes from siblings like save_project and export_as_project primarily through the 'new name and location' clause, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with save_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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like save_project or export_as_project. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to prefer this over similar operations.

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