krita_save_document

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

Annotations already signal write/destructive behavior, and the description builds on that by explaining the overwrite precondition and the relative-path convention. It does not contradict any annotation. The added context about replacing existing files is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that helps agents predict side effects.

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 with no filler; the core action is first, then the two critical constraints. Every sentence earns its place and the length is appropriate.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential behavior and overwrite rule, but leaves no information about return values, sync/async behavior, or how operation_id is used. The sibling set includes operation-tracking tools, so a note about operation semantics would improve completeness. As is, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains path (relative) and overwrite (needed for replacement), and mentions root as a configured output root. However, document_id, instance_id, and operation_id are left to be inferred from the schema/context, so the description only partially compensates for the complete lack of property descriptions.

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 'Save editable .kra work' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the destination ('configured output root'). The native .kra format distinguishes it from krita_export_png, so an agent can tell them apart. No ambiguity about what is being persisted.

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 specifies that paths are relative and that overwriting requires overwrite=true, which are conditions for calling the tool. It does not, however, name alternatives like krita_export_png or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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