Save Project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally. It discloses that a project form is shown before writing unless show_form=False, and explains the subtle side effect of writing a "window hidden" flag that can make the project appear unopened in the GUI.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place by explaining format differences or critical window-state behavior. It is structured with a clear opening statement, a bullet-style format comparison, and a focused paragraph on form behavior, making it readable despite the length.

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 output schema exists and the input schema fully covers the parameters, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers parameter purpose, defaults, format selection, and a non-obvious behavioral side effect. No crucial information needed for invocation is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema. It explains why binary=True matters (native GUI format, double-click association) and what show_form=False actually does to the saved project's window state. The path parameter is not enriched beyond the schema's absolute-path note, but the other two parameters are significantly clarified.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: "Сохранить текущий проект в файл" (save the current project to a file). It further distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_project, open_project, and close_project by focusing on persisting the existing project rather than creating, opening, or closing it.

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 gives clear format-selection guidance: XML for readable/diffable/version-portable text, binary .prt for the native GUI format. It also explains when to use show_form=False (headless machines) and the consequences of doing so, though it does not explicitly compare save_project to alternative sibling tools or state exclusions.

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