galbook_save

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. It never states that this writes persistent state, whether saving to an occupied slot overwrites it, whether the server-configured default book/agent are applied, or what a successful save returns — all of which matter for a mutation tool.

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?

The single short sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but here brevity crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency — the same byte budget could have carried a use-case clause or an overwrite warning.

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?

A four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs the description to explain persistence, overwrite behavior, and defaults; none of that is present. The description is not complete enough for an agent to call this confidently without probing sibling tools.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents book, slot, and agent, while note is undocumented everywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond restating "slot", so it does not compensate for the one gap or explain the interaction between slot format (quick vs 1-99) and the optional defaults.

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?

"Save to a slot" names a verb and a resource, so the basic intent (write a save file) is inferable, but "slot" is left unqualified and there is no differentiation from siblings like galbook_load, galbook_saves, or galbook_rewind that operate on the same save data. The bilingual gloss repeats the same phrase rather than clarifying it.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this creates a new save, overwrites an existing one, or how it relates to galbook_saves/galbook_load.

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