save_board_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses copy semantics (original preserved) and the meaning of overwrite and include_project, but omits key side effects: whether the open document's working file path changes, and what happens when overwrite=false and the target exists. Those behavioral gaps keep it at a minimum-viable 3.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is tight, with each line adding distinct information. No redundant padding, though the Args formatting is slightly boilerplate.

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 exists so return values need no explanation, and all three params are described. However, for a filesystem-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, the description should state the failure behavior when overwrite is false and whether the document path is rebound after the save.

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% (titles only), so the description must compensate and largely does: file_path is confirmed as the destination .kicad_pcb path, overwrite as overwrite-if-exists, and include_project as also writing the associated project file. Defaults (overwrite=false, include_project=true) are only in the schema, and no path format detail is added, so it stops short of 5.

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?

"Save a copy of the open PCB to a new path" gives a specific verb (save a copy) and resource (the open PCB) plus the destination scope (new path). The "copy" framing implicitly separates it from save_board (in-place save), but it never names that sibling explicitly, so a distinction is only inferred.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent must infer that this is for saving to a new location rather than save_board or snapshot_board, which is left entirely to guesswork.

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