Guardar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the default in-place overwrite and that asCopy avoids mutating the open document. It stops short of warning that a supplied path overwrites an existing file, does not mention the quality setting's effect, and omits the pdf format present in the enum.

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?

Three short sentences, verb front-loaded, with each sentence adding a distinct fact (supported formats, path default, asCopy behavior). No padding or 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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the core save semantics are covered but gaps remain around the quality parameter, the pdf format, and the destructive overwrite risk when a path is given.

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 low at 20%, so the description must compensate and it partially does: it clarifies the path default and the asCopy semantics, and its format list parallels the enum. It contributes nothing for quality, and doc relies entirely on its own schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Guarda el documento") and lists the supported formats, so the agent immediately understands this is an in-place save operation. However, it never names the closest sibling, ps_export, so the distinction between saving and exporting is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied through behavior: no path means overwrite the current file, and asCopy leaves the open document untouched. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over ps_export or when a path should be supplied versus omitted.

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