save_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose important behavior: saving in place requires an existing location, an absolute path triggers a copy, and format is derived from the extension if omitted. It doesn't cover overwrite behavior, errors, or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are transparent enough for a 4.

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 short, front-loaded with the operation, and each sentence adds distinct information. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The main call paths (in-place and save-as-copy) are documented, but several edge cases remain unspecified: what happens when format is passed without a path, whether an existing file is overwritten, and whether the document must already be open before saving. These gaps prevent full completeness for a tool with no output schema or annotations.

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 must compensate. It explains path behavior and format inference with examples, but it never explicitly defines doc_id or how format interacts when path is omitted, leaving some parameter meaning implicit.

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 names a concrete action ('Save a document') and specifies two modes (in-place vs. save-as-copy), clearly identifying the tool's responsibility. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling export_document, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 operational guidance for choosing path vs. no path (in-place vs. copy), and when format can be omitted. However, it does not discuss when to prefer save_document over sibling tools such as export_document or close_document, so comparative usage guidance is only implied.

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