rhino_save_as

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose relative-path resolution against D:/RhinoFiles or an optional folder, and it mentions the return type. However, it does not state whether existing files are overwritten, whether the active document becomes the new file after saving, or what happens with missing directories or 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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the path-resolution detail is concise and relevant. The docstring-style Args/Returns structure is a bit verbose for an MCP tool description, and the controller parameter is unnecessary, but overall the text is focused and efficient.

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, the return dict does not need further explanation. The description covers the essential path and override semantics, but it leaves important contextual gaps: overwrite behavior, whether the active document is now the new file, and how this tool differs from rhino_save_copy. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It adds real meaning: file_name can be a plain filename or a full path, and folder overrides the default base directory. The inclusion of 'controller' in the Args section is noise because that parameter is absent from the input schema, but the two actual parameters are explained usefully.

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 clearly states the core action: 'Save the current document under a new name/location.' This gives a specific verb, resource, and intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like rhino_save or rhino_save_copy, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool by saying 'save... under a new name/location,' but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as rhino_save or rhino_save_copy. The path-resolution rules are useful operational guidance, but they do not address when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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