save_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior. It usefully discloses the stateful behavior (path needed first, then save in place) and implies file overwriting via 'save in place.' However, it does not cover potential errors when no drawing is active, what permissions are required, or whether an existing file is overwritten without warning.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action first and parameter nuance second. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent how to invoke the first save and subsequent saves. It could be slightly more complete by stating error/return behavior or requiring an open active drawing, but those are 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 0%, so the description alone must explain the 'path' parameter. It does so thoroughly: absolute path, .vsdx extension, required on first save, optional on later saves. This goes well beyond the bare nullable string 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Save') and a clear resource ('the active drawing'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_document, open_document, and export_page_png. There is no ambiguity about what operation this tool performs.

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 provides explicit context for the optional path parameter: first call requires an absolute .vsdx path, subsequent calls can omit it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use save_document, but the save-vs-create/open/export distinction is clear enough from the wording.

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