Save Board

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds meaningful context about refusing to overwrite external disk edits unless force=true. This goes beyond the safety hint by explaining a specific conflict-resolution behavior, though it does not detail other side effects or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause provides useful information. No filler 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?

The description is sufficient for a save operation, covering the core action and key edge case. With an output schema present and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description does not need to explain return values or all parameters. It could mention what happens on success or failure, but this is not essential given the schema.

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 fully documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description only mentions force=true, which is already in the schema, adding no extra meaning beyond what is provided.

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 the specific resource 'current PCB board', distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_project or save_as. It also adds a distinctive behavior (refusing external overwrites) that further identifies the tool.

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 when to use the tool (to save the current board) and mentions the force=true condition for overwriting external edits, but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to save_project or save_as is provided.

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