save_model

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the default path behavior, directory restrictions, and overwrite semantics. Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the description. No contradictions.

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 very concise with only two sentences. The key action is front-loaded ('Write model to disk as IDF or epJSON'), and all necessary details are included without redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, 0 required), the description covers the main behavioral aspects. There is an output schema (not shown), so return values are likely documented there. The description could mention error conditions or confirmation messages, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the default for file_path (original load path), the allowed directory constraint, and the overwrite condition. For output_format, it just lists the options, but the overall parameter semantics are enhanced.

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 'Write' and identifies the resource 'model to disk as IDF or epJSON'. It clearly distinguishes saving from other operations like loading or migrating, and mentions the two output formats, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: it explains the behavior when file_path is omitted (re-save to original path), the directory constraint (must be within IDFKIT_MCP_OUTPUT_DIRS), and the overwrite condition. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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