Save a copy of a schematic as an independent variant for parameter comparison; provide the destination hash when overwriting an existing file.
Save a copy of a schematic as an independent variant. Existing destination needs its hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes | ||
| expected_sha256 | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| saved | Yes | ||
| backup | Yes | ||
| sha256 | Yes | ||
| warnings | Yes | ||
| gui_reload_required | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds that the copy is an independent variant and that an existing destination requires its hash, but it does not explain overwrite behavior, what gets destroyed, or permission requirements.
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?
Two short sentences with no wasted text; the core action is front-loaded and the destination-hash condition follows directly.
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 output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, but the description is thin for a destructive three-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions. It gives the core purpose and one precondition but leaves parameter meanings and overwrite behavior incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies expected_sha256 only as the hash required for an existing destination, while source, destination, and hash format remain unexplained.
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 action and resource: saving a copy of a schematic as an independent variant. It distinguishes the outcome from merely saving, but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as save_schematic.
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 only guidance is the precondition phrase "Existing destination needs its hash," which relates to expected_sha256 rather than when to choose this tool over save_schematic or other siblings. No when-not or alternative selection guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.