save_as

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key 'new filename' behavior but does not disclose side effects such as whether the current diagram's internal file reference changes to the new filename, or what happens if a file with the same name already exists (overwrite vs. error). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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, succinct sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the verb and directly conveys the essential action and differentiator. There is zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are likely covered. However, the description omits important behavioral nuances: what happens to the current diagram's file association after save_as, and whether existing files are overwritten. Given the presence of a sibling 'save' tool, an explicit clarification of when to use save_as versus save would improve completeness.

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% (the 'filename' parameter has a clear description: 'New filename for the diagram'). The tool description essentially repeats this information without adding further meaning. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 'Save the current diagram with a new filename' clearly states the action (save), the resource (current diagram), and the key differentiator (with a new filename) that distinguishes it from the sibling 'save' tool. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from the alternative.

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 usage context (use when you want to save under a different name) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'save' or mention any exclusions. The differentiation is implicit via the phrase 'with a new filename' rather than an explicit 'use this when you want to keep the original file intact'.

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