project_save

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 tool saves a project but doesn't explain what 'save' entails (e.g., overwrites existing data, requires permissions, has side effects like closing the project, or handles errors). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Save'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, with zero waste.

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?

Given the complexity of a project save operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or what 'save' means in this context (e.g., does it persist changes to a server or file?). For a tool with 2 parameters and significant implications, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters ('projectId' and 'saveAs'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the scope of 'saveAs' (e.g., if it creates a new project or renames the current one). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Save') and target ('currently opened project in its TCP server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'project_export_all_tables' or 'project_close', which also involve project operations, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific save function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'project_export_all_tables' for saving to files. This lack of context makes it unclear when this is the appropriate choice among related project tools.

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