Save a copy of the current project to a specified path in the configured output directory, enabling backups or alternative versions.
[WRITES FILE] Save a copy beneath the configured output directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must carry side-effect disclosure; [WRITES FILE] usefully flags that a file is created/modified and 'beneath configured output directory' hints at path scope. But it doesn't state whether existing files are overwritten, whether directories are created, or how path is resolved relative to the configured directory.
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?
A single sentence with a clear prefix; no filler. It is compact and front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavior and parameter detail.
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 is simple with one parameter and has an output schema, so the return value need not be described. Still, the behavior around existing files and path resolution is undocumented, so an agent cannot predict side effects precisely.
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 0% and the description adds only the location constraint ('beneath configured output directory') for the path parameter. It does not specify whether path is a full file name, relative subpath, extension handling, or what happens when it points outside the output directory.
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?
States a concrete action ('Save a copy') and a destination ('configured output directory'), and the [WRITES FILE] prefix signals persistence. However, it doesn't explicitly say it is saving the current project/session, so an agent has to infer the object from the tool name and sibling context.
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 like open_project or other saving/workflow steps; no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The description only names the operation, so an agent gets no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.