Save the active document to the default export directory as an ASCII-safe file copy, ensuring compatibility for external use. Optionally close the document after saving.
Save the active document to the default export directory with an ASCII-safe file name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| suffix | No | codex | |
| document_id | No | ||
| close_after_save | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. It reveals the ASCII-safe file-name transformation but doesn't mention overwrite behavior, what happens when close_after_save defaults to true, error cases, or return values — significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core behavior front-loaded. No wasted words, but the brevity borders on under-specification given the undocumented parameters.
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 tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning or effect of any parameter, and provides no detail on the result of saving.
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 0% and there are 3 parameters (suffix, document_id, close_after_save), all with defaults and none required. The description mentions none of them, so the agent receives no guidance on what suffix means, which document_id targets, or the effect of close_after_save.
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 clear verb+resource (save the active document) with two distinguishing traits: default export directory and ASCII-safe file naming. This differentiates it from siblings save_document and save_document_as in behavior, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.
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 on when to use this tool versus save_document, save_document_as, or other export-related tools. The 'active document' and 'default export directory' scoping is implied but no exclusions or alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.