ai_save_as_ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says the tool saves the current document as .ai, but does not disclose whether it overwrites an existing file, what happens when path is omitted, or whether the save operation modifies the in-memory document state. This is a meaningful gap for a potentially destructive file-writing 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 extremely compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. There is no redundant text or boilerplate.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description states the operation and the optional path. However, it does not explain the behavior when path is omitted, such as whether it saves to the current document path or triggers a save dialog. This leaves a minor but real ambiguity for an agent invoking the tool.

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 schema already covers the only parameter with a clear description: '保存路径（含 .ai 后缀），可选' (save path with .ai extension, optional). The description merely restates that path is optional and adds no further semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 a specific action ('save'), a specific resource ('current Illustrator document'), and the target format ('.ai'). It is easily distinguished from sibling export tools like ai_export_svg and ai_export_png, which target other formats.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ai_export_svg, ai_export_png, or ps_save_as_psd. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different save/export path should be chosen.

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