save_design

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

The description states 'An existing file is replaced', which is a destructive overwrite behavior. However, annotations declare destructiveHint: false, creating a direct contradiction. The description also lacks other behavioral context (e.g., permissions, error handling), but the contradiction alone warrants a score of 1.

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 two short sentences with zero waste, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the critical overwrite note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool, the rich parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral trait (file replacement). Minor details like whether a new file is created or required preconditions are omitted, but these are largely inferable.

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 100%, and the schema's path description is highly detailed, covering file extensions and relative path behavior. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline of 3.

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 specific verb 'save or export' and resource 'active design', making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like open_file, but the verb and context are sufficient for an agent to identify it.

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?

Usage is implied – save or export the active design – but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. An agent must infer the context from the tool name.

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