Save Document

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

Adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it runs without activating Illustrator in background mode and never invokes Computer Use, which tells the agent about side effects on the user's UI/environment. It does not disclose the overwrite consequence of 'save' mode, which slightly tensions with destructiveHint=false, though not enough to call a contradiction.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the execution-mode caveat second. No filler 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 zero-required-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action and execution environment. It could mention return behavior (e.g., the resolved save path) or error cases for unsaved documents, but nothing essential is missing.

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%, so both parameters (mode, path) are already fully documented in the schema, including the auto-generation fallback for path. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Save the active Illustrator document'), which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from close_document, export, or export_pdf, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to identify the tool.

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: the 'save' vs 'save_as' distinction lives in the schema enum description, not the tool description, and there is no guidance on when to use this instead of export/export_pdf. No prerequisites or when-not conditions are stated.

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