rws_experiment_save

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the save binds a confirmed project foundation and does not execute, but omits what happens on revision conflict or what a failed bind means.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the two qualifying clauses. It is tight, though the terse phrasing leaves room for more critical detail given the schema complexity.

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 four required parameters, a nested polymorphic record with upsert semantics, optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision and idempotency via requestId, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation.

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%, so the description should compensate, and it only gestures at the foundation binding (implying foundationRevision). It says nothing about expectedRevision semantics, requestId idempotency scope, or projectId scoping, leaving three of four required parameters unelaborated.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Save an experiment") plus a scoping clause ("bind its confirmed project foundation") and an explicit negative boundary ("does not execute it"). It is clear and distinguishable from an execution tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the many other *_save siblings.

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?

"Does not execute it" supplies an implicit when-not boundary, steering the agent away from run-execution tools. However, it never names alternatives (e.g., rws_run_register or rws_project_create) or states prerequisites, so the routing logic must be inferred.

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