save_set

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that save-as never overwrites an existing file (important nuance against destructiveHint=true), that Live may create a new "<name> Project" folder, that the result is verified via file path or modification time, and that macOS UI automation is required. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before calling a mutating tool.

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?

Front-loads the core action and keeps the mode distinction and caveats tight. The verification sentence is slightly meta for a tool description but is short and does convey how success is confirmed.

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?

With no output schema and a single optional parameter, the description covers everything needed: preconditions, path semantics with an example, non-overwrite behavior, folder side effect, and the platform requirement. Nothing essential is missing.

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 carry the `path` parameter — and it does: it explains the save-as semantics, gives a concrete example ("~/Music/My Song.als"), and states the failure condition when omitted. Only the accepted format details (absolute vs. tilde paths, extensions) are left implicit.

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 (save the current Live Set) and immediately distinguishes two modes: plain save vs. save-as when `path` is supplied. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like new_set and open_set without opening any 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?

Gives a clear precondition for the no-argument case ("the set must already have a file") and explains when `path` triggers save-as. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as open_set or new_set, so the routing guidance is implied rather than complete.

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