mermaid_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool copies an already-rendered diagram from the live preview, which is useful context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting), error conditions, or what happens if the preview_id doesn't exist, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear usage guideline. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential context and guidance without any redundant or verbose language.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage timing, and relationship to the sibling tool. However, it lacks details on output behavior (e.g., success/failure responses) and potential errors, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the diagram is 'already-rendered' and comes from the 'live preview', which provides context but no additional parameter-specific details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Save'), resource ('current live Mermaid diagram'), and destination ('to a file path'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool mermaid_preview by specifying it operates on the already-rendered diagram from the preview. This provides explicit verb+resource+scope differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this after tuning your diagram with mermaid_preview'), providing clear sequencing guidance and linking it directly to the sibling tool. It also implies when not to use it (e.g., before previewing), though it doesn't name explicit alternatives beyond the sibling.

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