vroid_save_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that plain Save silently overwrites the existing file, that Save As opens Wine's save dialog, and that without a name the dialog only appears if never saved. It also mentions it waits for the file and explains the persistence context. This is transparent and goes beyond mere operation to side effects and prerequisites.

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 and front-loaded: it states the core purpose first, then explains the two modes, then the critical warning. Each sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler. The structure makes it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 tool with two modes and edge cases (unsaved project), the description covers everything needed: mode selection, what happens with and without a name, the dialog behavior, and the importance relative to other tools. It also addresses persistence and the destructive nature of vroid_launch(restart=true). No critical information is missing.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters fully (100% coverage) with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the behavioral difference between supplying `name` (Save As) vs omitting it (plain Save), and clarifies that omitting it opens the dialog only if never saved. This adds operational meaning beyond the schema's straightforward parameter descriptions, so it exceeds 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?

Description starts with 'Save the .vroid project - plain Save, or Save As to an explicit path' which clearly states the tool's specific action and distinguishes the two modes. It is distinct from siblings (no other save tool) and gives a concrete resource (the .vroid project).

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Worth doing before any risky experiment...' and explains that nothing else persists work and vroid_launch(restart=true) discards it. It also details when to use name (Save As) vs plain Save, including the caveat about the dialog appearing only when never saved and the instruction to retry with a name. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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