project_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the failure condition (never saved and no path), but does not disclose other traits like whether it overwrites existing files, permissions needed, or if it is async. This leaves gaps for an agent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value. No extraneous text. It is optimally concise.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (present but not shown). The description covers key usage and failure cases. Given the output schema, return values need not be described. However, it could mention what a successful save returns or confirms.

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 description explains the single parameter 'path' clearly: it is optional and used to 'save as' a new file. The schema only provides type info, so the description adds meaningful usage context. However, it does not detail allowed path formats or restrictions.

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 tool's action ('Save the open project') and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like project_open and project_new by focusing on saving. However, it could be more explicit about the exact scope of 'save' (e.g., saving to a file vs. in-memory).

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 provides usage guidelines: when to use the path parameter ('save as' new file) and when not to (saves to current file). It also warns of failure if never saved and no path given. It does not list alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient.

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