rws_usage_save

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-destructive, idempotent write. The description usefully adds that cross-project reuse is allowed and that the original producer remains unchanged, but it does not explain permissions, revision-conflict behavior, or requestId/idempotency semantics.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. There is no wasted wording and the key non-destructive behavior is stated directly.

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 complex write tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage. The description covers the high-level intent but leaves critical invocation details—especially expectedRevision, role, and nested refs—unexplained.

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 0% across 8 parameters, including nested artifactRefs and experimentRef objects. The description hints at artifact references and a target experiment, but provides no meaning for requestId, expectedRevision, role, label, or the nested reference structure.

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 states a specific action—referencing precise artifacts—in a clear target context (an experiment), and adds scope via cross-project reuse. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from sibling registration/save tools such as rws_artifact_register or rws_usage_remove.

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?

It implies that the tool is used to reference artifacts in an experiment, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no alternatives. With many sibling registration and usage tools, an agent is left to infer routing.

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