fusion_save_document_as

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only or destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: the bridge confirms the document and project but does not return a reopenable version identifier, revealing a limitation. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra transparency beyond the annotated flags.

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, three sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the main action, explains the use case, and then notes a limitation. Each sentence adds information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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-as tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, where it saves, and a key limitation (no reopenable ID). It does not describe the return value or error conditions, but given the simplicity of the operation and the annotations, the information provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `name` and `project` (including defaulting behavior) but leaves `document` and `description` unexplained. This is partial compensation; half the parameters lack semantic context, so the description does not fully bridge the schema gap.

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 a document as a NEW file called `name`'. It specifies the resource (document) and the intent to create a new file, distinguishing it from the sibling fusion_save_document. It also clarifies the project context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Use this to keep the original untouched.' This implies when to use it versus saving in place. It does not explicitly name the alternative tool, but the phrase 'keep the original untouched' contrasts with a normal save. The limitation about not returning a reopenable identifier further clarifies expectations, providing solid guidance.

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