save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the error condition for missing filename, which is a key behavior. However, it doesn't mention if saving overwrites without confirmation, what happens on success, or any side effects. The transparency is minimal but adequate.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value, specifying the action, resource, and an important caveat.

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 tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple action, the description covers the essential context: what it does and when it errors. It could briefly mention the success outcome (e.g., 'returns nothing on success'), but the current level is sufficient for most agents.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it correctly avoids extraneous details.

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 it saves the current diagram to its file, and adds the critical condition that it errors if no filename is set. The verb 'save' matches the tool name and the resource 'current diagram' is specific. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'save_as' or 'new_bpmn'.

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 implies usage when a filename is already set (since it errors otherwise), but does not explicitly state when to use this over 'save_as' or other siblings. It provides no context about prerequisites or alternatives.

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