save_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well for the key side effect: a first save or save-as reopens the file in the same tab and resets undo history. It does not cover failure/error conditions (e.g. saving an unnamed project, overwrite permissions), leaving a modest gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate consequence; every clause earns its place with no restatement of the name or filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the description covers modes plus the notable tab/undo consequence. It omits error behavior and any mention of disk/permission outcomes, which a fully complete definition would touch.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by framing 'copy' as a snapshot taken before big changes and tying 'name' behavior to the first-save/save-as case and undo-history reset.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Saves the project') and immediately enumerates the three distinct save modes (in-place, new file/save-as, snapshot copy). No sibling save_* tool operates on the project itself, so the scope is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

Explains when each mode applies: in place when a file already exists, as a new file on first save or with a new name, and as a snapshot copy before big changes. It never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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