save_part_as

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 add one genuinely valuable side effect: the new file becomes the work part, so later operations target it. Beyond that it is silent on mutation-critical behavior — whether an existing file at the path is overwritten, whether the original part file is left untouched, and what errors occur on invalid paths.

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 clause, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the post-condition. No filler, no redundancy with the name or schema.

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 one-parameter tool the core semantics are covered, including the work-part switch, and the schema fully documents path. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about overwrite behavior and the fate of the original file for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 100% and the single path parameter is documented as "Absolute path of the new .prt file." The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Save the work part") plus the distinguishing modifier "under a new file name", which separates it in spirit from the plain save_part sibling. However, it never names save_part or otherwise explicitly routes the agent, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the "new file name" phrasing — this is the Save-As path rather than an in-place save — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion against save_part, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the target directory must exist).

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