fusion_save_document

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

Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint: false) and idempotency (idempotentHint: true), and the description adds the prerequisite that the initial save must be interactive. No contradictions with annotations, but additional details like effect on unsaved changes or return value are missing.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary action. No unnecessary words; every sentence provides value.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the return value or side effects of saving (e.g., whether it returns success, file path, or confirmation). The parameter is unexplained, leaving the agent with incomplete context for using the tool effectively.

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?

There is one optional parameter 'description' with no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on its meaning or usage. The description should clarify what the 'description' parameter does.

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 states 'Save the active document', specifying the verb ('Save') and resource ('active document'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'fusion_new_document' (create) and 'fusion_export_dxf' (export). The prerequisite about first interactive save adds specificity.

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 provides a clear condition for use: the document must have been saved interactively first. This guides the agent on when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools, though the condition implicitly does so.

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