pcb_save

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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds a non-obvious behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the editor switches to the target document first and then saves the active document, meaning it mutates editor state, not just disk content.

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 well-formed sentence with the target and the switch-then-save behavior front-loaded; nothing is padded. The parenthetical earns its place by explaining the mechanism rather than restating the name.

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 2-param save tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral subtlety (document switching). It omits any return/success semantics, but with no output schema that omission is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already defines both 'document' (UUID plus auto-switch behavior and UUID sources) and 'instance_id' (when required, auto-selection). The description reiterates the document-selection and active-document semantics but adds no new parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (save) and resource (the PCB document selected by the 'document' parameter), and the parenthetical clarifies the exact target is the active document. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling sch_save by resource, though it does not explicitly name that sibling as 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?

Usage is implied — you call it to persist the selected PCB document — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. dirty/unsaved state), and no reference to pcb_export_to_file or other persistence siblings as alternatives for different needs.

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