save_file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose two useful facts: the target is the active document and the format is .figcraft. It does not state whether an existing file is overwritten, whether confirmation is required, or what is returned on success/failure.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating verb, target, and format. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the operational caveats noted above.

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 one-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present. Given the absence of annotations on a disk-write operation, the description is adequate but does not fully cover overwrite, error, or permission behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single path parameter already documents its optional status and default. The description adds no syntax, extension rules, or directory behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: saving the active FigCraft document to disk in .figcraft format. It is clearly distinguishable from open_file and create_and_open, though the description does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to persist the currently active document. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if no document is open, and no comparison against create_and_open, which also produces files.

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