Save portfolio project files

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: only locked, writable members are saved, the list file is untouched, and there is 'No undo step.' The saved[] naming and refusal conditions are useful. It stops short of describing partial-failure behavior or how writability/lock state is determined, so it is not exhaustive.

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 core action is front-loaded in the opening clause, and every sentence carries information: scope, refusal condition, alternative, and undo behavior. It is dense with semicolons and em-dashes but not padded with filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters there is no input surface to document. Combined with annotations covering the destructive/idempotent profile, the description covers the refusal case, the scoping rule, and the lack of undo — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain inputs. It redirects its detail to output/behavior semantics (saved[] naming) rather than parameter guidance, which is appropriate.

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 ('Writes the projects of an open file portfolio back into their own .rpj files') and immediately scopes it against siblings by declaring that the .rpp itself is never written and there is no 'save as' for it. An agent can distinguish this from rillsoft_project_file_save and rillsoft_portfolio_ris_save without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the negative case ('Where a single project is open, the call is refused') and names the exact alternative to use instead ('use rillsoft_project_file_save'). Both the when and the when-not are spelled out with a concrete route.

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