save_schematic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says a save occurs, but does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, what happens if no schematic is open, whether authorization is required, or any other side effect beyond writing to disk.

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?

One short sentence with the action and target front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument tool and contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter save action with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is saved and where. It omits overwrite semantics and the open-document requirement, but these are minor for a tool that receives no arguments and whose return shape is documented separately.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The empty schema is self-explanatory, making the baseline 4 appropriate.

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'), resource ('open schematic'), and destination ('to disk'), so the action is immediately clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling save_board by naming the schematic resource, but does not explicitly contrast the two.

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-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites such as having an open schematic, nor does it point to alternatives like save_board or save_board_as.

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