rocky_save_projectSave the open Rocky project to its current path or a specified destination file.
Save the open Rocky project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Destination file. When omitted, the project is saved to its current path. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether saving overwrites an existing file, what happens if no project is open, or any permission or side-effect details beyond the basic save action.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple save operation.
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?
The tool is simple, the only parameter is fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. However, without annotations, the description should say more about save behavior, error conditions, and whether the operation is destructive or overwrite-prone.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the path parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Save the open Rocky project.' It clearly identifies the operation and its scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like rocky_open_project or rocky_close_project.
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 only implied usage condition is that a Rocky project must already be open. There is no guidance on when to use this versus related tools such as rocky_open_project, rocky_close_project, or rocky_create_project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.