save_game

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that the slot is overwritten, that the object is newly constructed with default values rather than an existing one, and the on-disk path (Saved/SaveGames/<slot>.sav). It doesn't mention permissions or any return-on-failure behavior beyond the message field, keeping it a notch below full disclosure.

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 critical 'NEW default-valued object / overwrites the slot' distinction is front-loaded in the first clause. The Returns line is justified since there is no output schema, though the single dense run-on sentence carries more clauses than strictly needed.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the destructive overwrite semantics, the object-construction behavior, the on-disk location, and the return shape. Combined with annotations that already flag the write/destructive profile, little is missing apart from failure-mode detail.

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 100%, so slot_name, user_index, and save_game_class are already fully documented, including the UMCPSaveGame default and the 'ignored on desktop' note for user_index. The description only restates the class default, adding no semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 (write/save) plus the exact resource (a NEW default-valued SaveGame object to a slot via SaveGameToSlot). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling: 'it does not save an object made by create_save_game.' An agent can tell it apart from create_save_game/save_game_to_memory without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context (writes a fresh default object to a slot, overwriting the prior contents) and an explicit exclusion relative to create_save_game. However, it never names the alternative tool an agent should use to persist an object built by create_save_game, so the routing guidance stops short of being fully explicit.

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