catia_save_document

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing a key failure mode (saving a never-saved document without a path) and a side effect (format conversion when the extension differs). These are meaningful behavioral details that the annotations themselves do not convey.

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?

Two compact sentences convey all essential behavior with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the distinction between in-place and Save As is presented clearly.

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, the description and schema together provide enough to invoke the tool correctly: which document, destination path, behavior, and one failure condition. It does not mention overwrite semantics or relationship to catia_save_all, but those are secondary for this tool's core task.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds value by clarifying the behavioral implications of the path parameter: empty means save in place, non-empty means Save As, and a differing extension triggers format conversion.

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 identifies the verb ('Save') and resource ('a document'), and specifies two distinct behaviors: in-place save and Save As with format conversion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling catia_save_all, so an agent must infer the scope difference rather than being told.

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 explains when to use each mode (no path vs. path), which is useful operational guidance. It does not, however, state when to choose this tool over alternatives like catia_save_all or catia_close_document, and it offers no exclusions or cautionary conditions.

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