sch_save

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's only job is to add context — and it adds none. It does not say whether the save is in-editor only or persists to disk, what the result is, or how failures surface, leaving it a near-restatement of the name.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though the minimalism is what leaves the other dimensions thin.

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 with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally viable. It still omits what 'save' actually commits to (editor session vs file) and any failure semantics an agent might need.

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 both 'document' and 'instance_id' are fully documented in the schema (including the auto-switch behavior and multi-instance rule). The description adds nothing and even introduces mild tension by calling it the 'current' document; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Save ... schematic document'), and the word 'schematic' distinguishes it from the sibling pcb_save. It falls short of a 5 because 'current' conflicts with the schema, which requires a target document UUID rather than implying the already-active document.

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?

No guidance on when to save versus file-oriented siblings like document_save_to_file or document_set_source, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the verb.

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