save_pattern

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function of saving a snippet but omits details about side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior), required permissions, error handling, or any output format. This lack of depth makes it difficult for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for sibling differentiation, and a clean Args list. It front-loads the main action and uses a structured format that is easy to parse. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description provides the essential purpose and parameter details, but it lacks explanation of the return value (despite having an output schema) and does not cover behavioral nuances like idempotency or overwrite behavior. Given the simplicity of a save operation, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining each parameter meaningfully: 'name: File name without extension (e.g. "boom_bap_basic")', 'category: Subfolder (e.g. "drums", "melodic", "bass")', and 'code: The Sonic Pi Ruby code to save'. This added context greatly improves usability compared to the bare 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 action ('Save a reusable Sonic Pi snippet to the pattern library') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool save_song by specifying that save_song is for full songs. This provides precise understanding of the tool's purpose.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'For full songs, use save_song instead.' This directly guides the AI agent in choosing the correct tool for the task.

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