emacs_file_save_as

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation but does not explain whether an existing file at the target path is overwritten, whether the buffer is renamed to visit the new path, or what side effects occur.

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, well-constructed sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and destination clearly, earning every word.

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?

Although the tool is simple with only two documented parameters, the absence of annotations and an output schema means the description must carry more weight. It lacks important operational context such as overwrite behavior, buffer state after saving, and any error conditions, leaving the agent with meaningful uncertainty.

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%, and both parameters have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it does not introduce new parameter meaning or constraints.

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'), a specific resource ('buffer'), and a specific destination ('new file path'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. The phrase 'new file path' also distinguishes it from sibling emacs_file_save, which presumably saves to the current path.

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 implies usage: use this when you want to save a buffer to a new file path rather than its existing location. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or name alternatives such as emacs_file_save.

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