Save Current Pure Data Patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions one extra detail (that the live canvas is included) but omits critical mutation behaviors: what happens if the target file exists and overwrite is false, whether the file is created if absent, error/return behavior, and permissions. This is a significant gap 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core action. Every phrase earns its place, including the parenthetical 'including the live canvas' which adds useful context without verbosity.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters should provide more guidance. The description assumes context from related live-session tools (e.g., what 'active patch file' means) and does not explain the overwrite behavior or success/error outcomes. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps for an agent to misuse.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that `targetPath` is an absolute path, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, `overwrite` is not mentioned at all; its default of `false` and effects (e.g., does it fail or auto-rename?) are unexplained.

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 writes/saves the current Pd patch to a file, specifying both the source ('current generated Pd patch, including the live canvas') and destination ('active patch file or an absolute targetPath'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pd_create_live_patch or pd_preview_patch by being the persistence operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is implicit: use it to save a patch. There is no explicit mention of when to choose this over preview or open, or when not to use it.

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