motion_save_as

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the key safety behavior: 'Never overwrites the originally-opened file unless output_path is the same path.' It also clarifies the consequence of passing a new filename (keeps source untouched). It does not state whether an existing output file will be overwritten, but 'Write' implies this; still, this is a minor omission.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Write'), and every phrase earns its place. It includes a crucial safety qualifier without unnecessary elaboration.

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 file-save tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the most important safety condition. However, the missing explanation of the 'path' parameter is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect invocation. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains output_path ('where the document is written') but does not explain the 'path' parameter at all. The phrase 'open, modified document' hints that 'path' identifies the source, but this is not explicit, leaving the agent to guess the role of a required parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('the open, modified document to output_path'), clearly stating the save-as functionality. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are focused on listing, opening, setting, and keyframing, none of which perform save operations.

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 usage by stating 'pass a new filename to keep the source template untouched,' giving a clear use case for when a new output path is desired. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus any alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied 'open, modified document' condition.

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