save_plot

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a filesystem write but never says whether an existing .srf file is overwritten, whether the source document is modified or left open, or what permissions/state are required. The existence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but the mutation semantics remain undisclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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 write-to-disk tool with no annotations and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves key agent-facing questions unanswered: overwrite behavior, target directory conventions, and how the document argument is resolved. The output schema covers the response side, but the input and side-effect side is thin.

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% for both parameters. The description never explains that 'document' selects which document (defaulting to 'active') or what form 'output_file' should take (full path, extension handling, relative vs absolute). With zero schema coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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 specific verb (save) and resource (open Surfer document) plus the resulting file type (.srf plot file), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling export_document, leaving the save-vs-export boundary to inference.

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 phrase 'an open Surfer document' implies the document must already be loaded, which is a weak prerequisite. There is no statement of when to use this instead of export_document or close_document, and no mention of what happens when the document is not open.

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