Save Docling document

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

The description adds that both markdown and JSON files are written and that filenames depend on the document key, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten or what happens if the document is not in the cache; this is a moderate transparency gap, but there is no annotation contradiction.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds necessary operational detail without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it states the precondition, the action, and the output forms. The missing overwrite/collision behavior is a minor gap but does not prevent correct invocation.

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 input schema fully documents document_key as the unique identifier, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the document key is used not only for cache lookup but also for deriving the output filenames.

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 action ('Save'), a specific resource ('document from the local document cache'), and the exact output formats ('both markdown and JSON'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_docling_document_to_markdown or conversion tools.

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?

It clearly conveys that the tool operates only on documents already present in the local cache, which is a useful precondition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over sibling export tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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