save_document_as

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation and return value but does not mention whether existing files are overwritten, whether the document is saved in its current format or a specified one, or any side effects like modifying the current document state. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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 compact, uses clear headings for args and returns, and has no fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose. The structure is easy to parse and front-loads the main action.

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 save operation with no annotations and no details on overwrite behavior, file format handling, path requirements, or error scenarios, the description is incomplete. While it mentions the return confirmation, it does not cover important edge cases that an agent would need to avoid incorrect usage (e.g., what happens if the output file exists).

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?

Although the schema provides only generic titles ('Doc Id', 'Output Path'), the description adds meaningful context: doc_id is 'from open_document' and output_path is 'Output file path'. This gives agents the provenance of doc_id and the purpose of the path, exceeding the schema's minimal info. Despite the signal indicating 0% coverage, the description actually provides valuable parameter semantics.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Save the document to a new file.' It distinguishes from siblings like save_document by implying a different target, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with related save operations. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as save_document or save_block. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that doc_id must come from open_document) beyond the parameter description. The description does not clarify the difference between saving to a new file versus saving in place, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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