armorpaint_save_project

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

Discloses behavior not visible in annotations: the path must be absolute, pack_assets is optional, and existing files require overwrite=true. Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation; the description adds the overwrite guardrail and file-format detail. It doesn't describe failure modes, but the key behavior is covered.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded action, and no filler. Every clause contributes a distinct fact: path, format, pack option, and overwrite requirement.

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 save operation, the essential conditions are covered: target path, pack behavior, and overwrite requirement. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. Minor omissions such as requiring an already-open project are not critical for correct invocation.

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 descriptions are 0% covered, yet the description effectively documents all three parameters: path_name (absolute .arm path), overwrite (existing files require true), and pack_assets (optionally packing imported assets). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 clear verb ('Save'), resource ('the project'), target format ('absolute .arm path'), and two behavioral modifiers (pack_assets, overwrite). It stands apart from siblings like open_project, export_textures, and export_layer because it targets the whole project file rather than a layer, texture, or material.

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?

Provides clear operational context: save must target an absolute .arm path, and existing files require overwrite=true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the save-project scope is communicated clearly enough to route an agent without ambiguity.

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