Save the project

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: atomic full-write-then-replace so a failure leaves the previous file intact, plus the external codec dependency for Pivot formats.

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, then packs format, figure-selection, atomicity and path defaults into one tight paragraph with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries distinct information, though a bulleted split for formats could improve scanability.

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?

Covers the five zero-required parameters, format quirks, figure targeting, and write-failure behavior — enough for an agent to call it correctly without an output schema. Only the return value/shape is unaddressed, which is minor for a save operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaning the schema lacks: the interplay between figureTypeId/figureUid (both omitted = first figure in project) and the 'save beside the opened file' default for path. Only the project parameter's default behavior is left to the schema.

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 ('Write the open project to a file') and then enumerates the exact format set, which no sibling tool offers. An agent can distinguish it from project_close or project_describe purely from the description.

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 gives per-format selection guidance ('styk' for project, 'stkz' for a single figure, 'stykmov' for a movieclip, 'piv'/'stk' needing the Python codec) and the figure-selection rule when both ids are omitted. It does not point to sibling alternatives or say when not to save, but the decision context is clear.

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