Krita Save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Save' implies writing to disk, but there is no mention of whether existing files are overwritten, how formats are determined, or what happens if no document is open. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant filler. It front-loads the core action and provides essential context about the path parameter without wasting words.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and an output schema, the description is too thin for a saving operation with no annotations. It fails to mention overwrite semantics, supported formats, error conditions, or any return value expectations, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool safely and effectively.

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 schema only defines 'path' as a string with no description. The description adds meaning by indicating that path points to a save location and that the extension (.kra/.png/...) likely determines format (as in 'Save the current Krita document to path'). However, it does not specify allowed formats, format inference behavior, or file overwrite behavior, so it only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states the action ('Save'), the resource ('current Krita document'), and the destination ('to path'), with example extensions to clarify the path's role. It is distinguishable from siblings like krita_export_layers and krita_open_file, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ase_save_as or krita_export_layers. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as an open document, or conditions that would make a different tool more appropriate.

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