Save TouchDesigner project

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: bounded overwrite consent, fail-closed to Keep on timeout/error, no native file dialog, no project load/quit, no raw Python fallback, and the exact return payload. This far exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds operational value—purpose, consent behavior, and constraints/returns. No fluff 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: when a path is required, timeout bounds, overwrite consent semantics, fail-closed behavior, what it never does, and what it returns. It is complete and self-contained.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters, so the description doesn't need to add much. It reinforces the 'Save As' path concept but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Save') and names the precise resource (current TouchDesigner project) plus the Save As variant. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like save_component_to_vault or export_network_to_vault, which target different artifacts.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for saving the current project or a Save As, which implies the primary use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and the niche purpose. Slight deduction for no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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