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

Adds a great deal beyond annotations: nothing is saved when checks fail, errors are returned, the first destructive-ish save is refused once with the lost function/element ids named, cross-page table/storage impact is flagged with page names, and the call can take up to 90 seconds. The refusal guard explains why destructiveHint=false in practice, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and side effect, and every sentence carries useful information about checks, refusals, and publish scope. The sentence 'so is the first save that changes a table or a gb.storage key other pages read, with those pages' is grammatically tangled and takes effort to parse, costing a perfect score.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (errors on check failure, names of lost ids or affected pages on refusal) and warns about the 90-second latency. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret failure modes.

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 each parameter carries a detailed description (summary, not_done, session_id), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no syntax or format guidance for the parameters, which is the expected baseline-3 posture when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Save the open page as a new version' — plus the closing side effect of the session. It also distinguishes the scope from siblings: 'Runs the same checks as studio_run_checks' and 'Saving does not publish' make it unmistakable versus run_checks and close.

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 reference to studio_run_checks implies the agent doesn't need to run checks separately before saving, and 'saving does not publish: the user publishes the version' rules out a publish workflow. The retry semantics ('refused once') implicitly define a fix-and-resave loop. There is no explicit 'when not to use' statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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