resolve_save_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Save' without disclosing side effects such as overwriting, disk persistence, blocking behavior, or handling of unsaved changes. The output schema exists, but the description gives no hint of what the tool returns or does beyond the bare action.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource immediately and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter action.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, this is mostly sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. However, missing side effects and usage context leave an agent to infer what 'save' actually entails in Resolve.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema fully documents this with 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb, 'Save', and a clear resource, 'current project', so the action is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no sibling performs a save operation, so confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus related project operations like load_project or create_project. The intended usage is only implied by the verb, with no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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