Save project file as

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds value beyond them: the overwrite precondition, the refusal when a portfolio is open, and the critical 'No undo step' warning. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive write.

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, all front-loaded with zero filler; the destructive 'No undo step' warning sits last, which is acceptable emphasis rather than padding.

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?

Covers purpose, precondition, failure mode, alternative routing, and reversibility; an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent requires to call it correctly 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: 'under a new path' clarifies path semantics and the rule 'Where that file exists already, overwrite:true is required' explains the interaction between the two parameters beyond the per-field descriptions.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Saves the project under a new path (.rpj)') that immediately distinguishes it from the sibling rillsoft_project_file_save and from the portfolio save tools. An agent can tell it apart 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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance ('Refused while a portfolio is open; there rillsoft_portfolio_project_files_save saves the contained projects') and names the condition selecting the alternative. Also states the precondition for the overwrite parameter.

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