Save project file

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, idempotent and destructive, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description still adds behavior beyond them: the refusal case for an open portfolio and the fact that there is 'No undo step' (i.e., history_undo cannot revert this write). That is real value, though it does not describe what is overwritten or any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the two routing rules and the undo caveat, in descending order of importance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. For a zero-parameter save operation with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the target, the failure/refusal paths, and the irreversibility.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The behavioral description of the implicit target (the currently open project path) is the only relevant 'parameter' and it is stated.

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 ('saves the open project') plus the exact scope ('under the path it already has'), and explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not (save_as, portfolio_project_files_save). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: when the project has never been saved, use rillsoft_project_file_save_as; when a portfolio is open, this tool is refused and rillsoft_portfolio_project_files_save is the correct call. Both alternatives and their selecting conditions are named.

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