project_save

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

The description indicates a write operation ('save') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as overwrite behavior, required state (project must be open), side effects, or return values. With no annotations, the description should provide more transparency.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the lack of essential information means it doesn't fully earn its place. Could be more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned, but it omits that. The simple action is not fully covered; details about the optional path and default behavior are 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'path' parameter beyond implying it is under FDTD_WORKSPACE. No default behavior, format, or semantics for the parameter are given.

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 the verb 'Save' and the resource 'active FDTD project' and location 'under FDTD_WORKSPACE'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'project_load' and 'project_new' by the action, but lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'project_new' or 'project_load'. No context about prerequisites or scenarios is provided.

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