rws_spec_save

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

Annotations already cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs to add what they don't. It adds useful semantics — draft vs ready revisions and that implementations pin an exact ready revision — implying ready revisions are effectively immutable, but says nothing about optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision, the idempotency role of requestId, or what happens on a stale revision.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the revision behavior, then the boundary rule. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a deep nested record, no output schema, and no annotations explaining concurrency or error behavior. Given the low schema coverage, the description should explain expectedRevision conflicts and requestId semantics; instead it omits all parameter guidance.

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% and the description never mentions any of the four required parameters. The critical semantics of expectedRevision (concurrency guard) and requestId (idempotency key) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess how to call this correctly.

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 and resource: defines and saves a method-level contract revision, with a clear scope statement that this is a contract, not a run. It distinguishes reasonably from run-related siblings but doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the many other *_save siblings (research_save, experiment_save, protocol_register).

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?

"Define a method-level contract before implementation" gives clear timing, and "Cases/configurations belong to runs, not method contracts" actively excludes a tempting misuse. No alternative tool is named for when a contract already exists or when a different save sibling is appropriate.

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