save_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that '.opju' is appended when missing and that empty path saves to current location. However, it fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether saving overwrites an existing file, whether unsaved changes are preserved, or any potential destructive effects. This is insufficient for a save operation.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear purpose line, enumerated argument description, and returns note. It fits in a few lines without wasted text. The structure with Args: and Returns: is clean. Minor improvement could remove the empty line after 'Args:'.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (despite not showing it here), the description covers the basics: operation, path behavior, and confirmation output. However, it lacks completeness for a save operation: no mention of overwrite behavior, error cases (e.g., invalid path), or whether it preserves unsaved changes. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 only parameter, file_path, is described with useful details beyond the schema: Windows/WSL style, automatic '.opju' appending, and default save location behavior. This adds significant meaning that the schema's minimal definition (type string, default empty) lacks.

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 current Origin project.' This is a specific verb+resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like load_project, the sibling set is diverse enough that confusion is unlikely. The purpose is clear.

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 (saving a project) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., load_project for loading, new_project for creating). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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