save

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the error condition (error if no filename set), which is useful behavioral context, but little else about side effects. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately notes the key error condition. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers what the tool does and a critical edge case (missing filename). It does not discuss permissions or asynchronous behavior, but these are minor for a save operation with existing annotations.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to elaborate on; the description correctly avoids adding irrelevant details.

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 the exact action (save), the resource (current diagram), and the destination (its file), which immediately distinguishes it from save_as. The error condition adds precision. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose for an agent.

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 that a filename must already be set to avoid an error, which indirectly suggests using save_as when no filename is set, but it does not explicitly name save_as or other alternatives. This leaves usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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