rws_analysis_save

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never mentions the optimistic-concurrency contract implied by the required expectedRevision, what happens on a revision mismatch, or that an existing id performs a partial merge.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the primary effect, with no filler. It is arguably too terse for the schema's complexity, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 mutation tool with a nested record object, a merge-or-create anyOf, and a required revision token, this description is far too thin, especially with no output schema to explain the result. An agent would have to infer merge semantics and conflict handling entirely from the JSON 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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% on a four-parameter, deeply nested schema, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names three record fields and notes codeRef can be omitted, but says nothing about requestId, projectId, or expectedRevision, which is the most error-prone required parameter.

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 (save) and resource (analysis) plus the key content fields (observations, interpretation, limitations), so the agent knows this persists an analysis record. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like rws_experiment_save, rws_research_save, or rws_comparison_save, so the differentiation is only implicit in the resource name.

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 only guidance is the aside 'manual analysis may omit code', which is a field-relaxation note rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of prerequisites, when to choose this over the sibling save tools, or when not to call it.

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