Save project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by naming the exact failure modes (untitled projects, read-only projects) and the return shape {saved, project}, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing error signaling or whether an on-disk overwrite is confirmed, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the exceptions and return shape. Every clause earns its place: no restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return object shape, the failure conditions, and the correct alternative tool — everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret a failure. Nothing material is missing for a zero-parameter save operation.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and no schema gap to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no words on 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saves the open project to its own file') and anchors it to the UI path (File > Save). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling save_project_as and open_project, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicitly states two preconditions for failure — untitled (never saved) projects and read-only projects — and names the concrete alternative (save_project_as) for the untitled case. This is a textbook when-to-use / when-not-to-use declaration.

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