apple_textedit_save

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotency=false, and the description adds meaningful context on top: the overwrite gate for existing paths, the existing-parent precondition, and that RTF is the only format written with no implicit conversion. It omits what happens on failure or that the RTF write is format-lossy for non-RTF content.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the overwrite constraint front-loaded. Every sentence adds a distinct rule.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts an agent needs before calling. It could say more about failure behavior when the parent directory is absent or the format conversion is lossy, but nothing critical 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 coverage is only 33% (documentName alone), so the description must carry path and overwrite — and it does, defining the .rtf requirement plus existing parent for path and the overwrite:true rule for existing targets. documentName semantics are already in the schema, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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 a TextEdit document to a path) and pins the output format to .rtf. It implicitly separates itself from apple_textedit_set_text and apple_files_write_text, but never names an alternative, so it stops short of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 two concrete operating conditions: the parent directory must already exist, and any existing target (including the current document path) requires overwrite:true. That is real when-to-use guidance, though it never says when to prefer this over sibling save/write tools.

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