gh_save_file

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

Annotations already signal write behavior (readOnlyHint: false), and the description's 'Save' matches that. It does not go beyond the annotation to disclose overwrite semantics, failure modes if no default path exists, or whether any confirmation is given, but for a save operation the basic behavior is clear and consistent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation immediately and leaves details to the 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 simple save operation with one optional path parameter, an output schema, and an annotation marking it as a write, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the default-path behavior or when no active definition exists, but the schema already covers the path default, so the main gap is only the usage guidance captured above.

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 description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the input schema's path property already explains that it defaults to the open file. Because the schema provides the essential semantics, the lack of extra description is acceptable, though the tool description itself does not guide parameter choice.

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 states a clear action ('Save') and a specific resource ('the active Grasshopper definition'), which immediately distinguishes this from Rhino document save tools like rhino_save / rhino_save_as and from gh_open_file. No ambiguity remains about what the tool operates on.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use gh_save_file versus alternatives such as gh_bake_to_rhino, gh_open_file, or rhino_save. The context is implied by the name, but the description does not state prerequisites (an open definition) or exclusions.

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