Save all open documents that have unsaved changes and an existing file path. Unnamed documents are reported and skipped.
Save every open document that has unsaved changes and already has a file path. Documents that have never been saved are reported back and skipped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral nuance: only changed documents with saved paths are written, while never-saved documents are skipped and reported. This is meaningful context beyond the raw annotation flags.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and scope are front-loaded, and the skip/report behavior is stated efficiently.
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 parameterless save-all tool, the description covers the essential behavior, conditions, and the handling of unsaved documents. It does not specify the exact format of the returned 'reported back' information, but this is a minor gap given no output schema and low tool complexity.
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 has zero parameters, so the schema is already complete. Description adds no parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 specific action ('Save every open document') and precisely scopes the target documents ('has unsaved changes and already has a file path'). This distinguishes it from single-document save and export tools without requiring the reader to open 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?
The description clearly implies when the tool applies through its scoping conditions, but it never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives like catia_save_document or catia_export_all_open. It provides context but no direct when-to-use vs. alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.