Save Manic file to the user's project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses required authentication (MANIC_API_KEY with specific scopes) and revision behavior on existing paths. However, it does not mention the return value on success/failure, potential side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long with zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and outcome; the second adds revision behavior and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place, and no irrelevant details are included.

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 tool has two mandatory parameters, no enums, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers purpose, effect, revision behavior, and auth needs. One minor gap: it does not describe what the agent should expect as a response or how to confirm success, but for a save tool this is acceptable.

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 100% – both parameters (path, source) are documented with descriptions and constraints in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 clearly states the tool saves '.manic source as a document in the user's default Manic project' and explains the effect (appears in Manic Create and Workbench). The verb 'saves' and resource '.manic source' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from all sibling tools (manic_check, manic_render, etc.), which perform different operations.

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 explains when to use the tool (to save a .manic file to the project) and provides important context like revision behavior on existing paths. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings, though the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no confusion is likely.

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