save_drawing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral aspect—empty path triggers Save, provided path triggers SaveAs—which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, error conditions (e.g., no active drawing), permissions, or return value, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a write operation.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clear rule for the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, the active-drawing dependency, and the parameter behavior. It could be more complete with explicit notes about errors or prerequisites, but these are not critical for this level of complexity.

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 0% because the schema only lists 'path' with a default of ''. The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's semantic impact: without a path it performs Save, with a path it performs SaveAs. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs and goes well beyond the minimal schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Guarda el dibujo activo' (saves the active drawing). It uses a specific verb ('save') and resource ('active drawing'), and the second sentence distinguishes between saving to the existing path and saving to a new path, differentiating it from sibling tools like create_drawing or open_drawing.

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 provides clear context: it operates on the active drawing. It also gives explicit usage guidance for the path parameter ('Sin path hace Save; con path, SaveAs'), telling when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it misses a full when/when-not structure.

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