save_project

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description discloses important behavioral details: relative filenames resolve against the session's working directory rather than PLAXIS's own directory, and the result reports the resolved absolute path. This adds operational context not captured by annotations.

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?

Four concise sentences, each earning its place. The first states the primary purpose, the second covers the omission case, the third clarifies path resolution, and the fourth states the output. No redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers all essential behaviors: when to omit the filename, how paths are interpreted, and what the result reports. No other aspects (e.g., error cases) are needed for this simple operation.

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 provides only a nullable string with default null, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that omitting filename saves in place, while providing a filename saves to a specified path, including the crucial distinction between absolute and relative paths and their resolution behavior.

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 'Save the active project' with an optional new path, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling project tools like new_project, open_project, and close_project, which are about creation/opening/closing rather than saving.

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 explains two usage modes (in-place save when filename is omitted, save to a new path when provided) and clarifies how relative paths are resolved. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear and prevents common mistakes about working directories.

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