td_save_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly states the tool saves the current project, but does not disclose if it overwrites the existing file when no path is specified or if there are any side effects. The description is minimally sufficient but could be more transparent.

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 long, front-loaded with the verb 'Save', and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and optional parameter.

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 save tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary action and the purpose of the parameter. It does not explicitly state default behavior when path is omitted, but that is implied by the context of saving the 'current' project.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the path parameter is for a .toe file, which goes beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. This helps the agent understand the expected format.

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?

Description clearly states the tool saves the current TouchDesigner project and optionally to a specified .toe path. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which handle other operations like creating, destroying, or connecting operators.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, the context is clear since sibling tools cover very different functionalities. The description implies usage for saving projects, and the exclusion of alternatives is inherent in the tool's name and purpose.

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