save_project

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds the save-as trigger via `path`, which is useful context beyond annotations. But it doesn't disclose overwrite behavior, error conditions, or whether the `project` argument selects a project or requires it to be open, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then qualifies the save-as variant. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, which reduces the burden. However, for a mutation with two 0%-documented parameters, the description should explain the `project` parameter and overwrite/path-exists behavior. Those gaps keep it at minimum viable.

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 explains `path` well by tying it to save-as, but says nothing about `project`, leaving an optional parameter completely unexplained. It compensates for only half of the schema gap.

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 ('project') and explicitly distinguishes the save-as variant via the `path` parameter. It is clearly distinct from siblings like `open_project` or `close_project`, though it doesn't mention `new_project` as a related operation.

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 the two modes: plain save when `path` is omitted, save-as when `path` is given. However, it doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open), what happens if the path already exists, or when an agent should prefer `save_project` over `close_project` with save semantics.

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