project_save_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'save to a new path.' It does not state whether an existing file at the destination is overwritten, whether the current project path changes after the save, what file extension or path format is expected, or whether any other 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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word communicates essential information: the action, the target, and the distinguishing detail ('new path').

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 one-parameter save operation, the description is minimally viable for an agent to attempt a call. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the absence of overwrite semantics, path format expectations, and post-save behavior leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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?

There is only one parameter, path, and the schema provides only a title with no description. The description adds only the minimal meaning that the path is the new save destination, but it does not clarify accepted formats, absolute vs relative paths, file extension handling, or behavior when the path already exists.

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 and resource: 'Save the project to a new path.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling project_save, which implies saving to the current path, and from project_new and project_open. The meaning is immediately understandable and not a tautology.

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 phrase 'to a new path' implies this tool is for saving the project under a different location rather than using project_save. However, it never explicitly names the alternative project_save or states when not to use this tool, so the usage guidance remains only implied.

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