save_document_as

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that a save operation occurs, but does not disclose whether an existing file at the path is overwritten, whether the original document remains open, or how doc_name selects the document to save. The term 'new' hints at a non-destructive save-as, but critical side effects are left unclear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity leaves out meaningful detail about parameters and behavior.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the role of doc_name, overwrite behavior, or whether the active document is implied when doc_name is null. The output schema covers return values, but critical input and side-effect semantics are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to path by indicating it is an FCStd path, but it does not explain doc_name at all. The optional document name parameter is only self-evident from its schema title, not from the description.

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 identifies the operation: saving a document to a new path in FCStd format. It uses a specific verb and resource and is distinguishable from siblings like open_document and list_documents. However, it does not explicitly state whether the active document or the document named by doc_name is saved.

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 on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are provided. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling context that this is for save-as behavior.

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