save_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It offers minimal transparency: it does not state if this is a mutation (destructive write), what happens if the path is invalid, whether it overwrites existing files, whether it triggers a full analysis re-run, or if it's safe for concurrent access. The sibling list includes patch_bytes (clearly destructive) and undefine (clearly destructive), but save_database's description doesn't clarify its safety profile at all. A mention like 'writes current state to disk, overwriting existing file at path' would greatly improve transparency.

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 very concise—two short sentences—and front-loads the core purpose ('Save the IDA database'). Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the one parameter. No fluff. The only reason it's not a 5 is that it could be even tighter (e.g., merge into one sentence: 'Save the IDA database; provide a path to save elsewhere or leave empty to save in-place.'), but the current structure is clear and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, 0 required, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It explains the parameter's behavior fully. The presence of an output schema (to which the description need not refer) partially compensates for the missing annotations. A small gap remains: the description does not state return value behavior (does it return success/error info? path of saved file?), and the output schema might provide that, but the description should ideally hint at the response format for a new user.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0% (the schema property for 'path' has no description), the tool description fully covers the single parameter's semantics: 'Pass a path to save to a specific location, or leave empty to save in-place.' This is clear, actionable, and adds significant value beyond the schema's bare properties definition (type + default). The default value is 'empty string', which aligns with 'leave empty to save in-place.'

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 tool's purpose: saving the IDA database. It identifies the key resource ('IDA database') and the action ('Save'). The sibling context (many read/analysis tools, a few mutation tools like patch_bytes, undefine) doesn't create confusion, as this is the only 'save' operation, though it shares a 'database' mutation category with patch_bytes and undefine. A more precise verb like 'persist' or 'write to disk' and indicating that this is the core persistence operation would make it a 5.

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 guidance on how to use the path parameter ('pass path to save to specific location, or leave empty to save in-place'). However, it lacks when-to-use guidance vs alternatives (e.g., there's no sibling for 'save as', but the tool might conflict with auto-save or IDA's own save mechanisms). No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must database be open? must it be modified?). The parameter usage is well-explained for a single-parameter tool.

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