sw_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 burden. It does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the active document's working path changes, whether a dialog or permission prompt appears, or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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?

A single tight sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the optional flag attached at the end. No filler, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the definition is thin: overwrite behavior, error conditions, and the STEP output destination are all unstated, leaving the agent unable to predict the side effects of calling it.

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 only 50%: path is fully documented in the schema (absolute path with .SLDPRT/.SLDASM extension), but step has no schema description. The description partially compensates by explaining that step optionally writes STEP as well, though it does not say where that STEP file lands.

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 in Spanish: saves the active document to the given path. It is clear what happens, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling sw_export_step despite both touching STEP output.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only implied usage note is the optional STEP flag, and the agent gets no hint about whether to prefer this over sw_export_step or how they differ when step=true.

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