Save Document

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful details: the path must be absolute and the parent directory must exist, and it explains the Save-As-Copy behaviour (internal name/path unchanged). It doesn't mention overwrite semantics or return values, but it covers the key behavioral traits that affect how an agent calls it.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then the key path requirement, then the format list, and finally the copy nuance. Every sentence carries necessary information without any padding or repetition.

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 save operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, key format choices, a behavioral fork (copy vs. normal), and a non-obvious path constraint. It lacks explicit overwrite behavior, but that is commonly implied for save operations and the description remains sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% (all parameters have schema descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the semantics by clarifying the copy parameter (with `copy:true` the document's internal name/path is left unchanged) and by spelling out the path requirement (absolute, parent dir exists) that the schema only mentions as 'Absolute output path.' This adds value beyond the schema.

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 the verb (save) and resource (the active document), and specifies the action's scope: saving to disk. It also lists supported formats and the distinct copy behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_document or new_document.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: saving the active document to disk, with explicit preconditions (absolute path, parent directory must exist). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the nature of the operation make it obvious this is the save operation, not open/import. A bit more explicit 'when to use vs other tools' would make it a 5.

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