svg_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '저장합니다' (saves) implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, whether it modifies the current canvas state, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns. For a file system operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that gets straight to the point. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter and clear core functionality.

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 file system write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens when filePath is omitted ('기존 경로 사용' - use existing path) - what existing path? It doesn't describe the return value or error conditions. Given the complexity of file operations and lack of structured safety information, the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 100% (the filePath parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides about the filePath parameter, but doesn't need to since schema coverage is complete.

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 ('저장합니다' - saves) and resource ('현재 캔버스를 SVG 파일로' - current canvas as SVG file). It's specific about what gets saved (current canvas) and the output format (SVG file). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like export_svg, which appears to be a related export function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like export_svg and export_png available, there's no indication of when svg_save is preferred over export_svg, or what distinguishes these two SVG-related tools. No prerequisites or contextual usage information is provided.

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