save_game_async

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely informative behavioral trait beyond the annotations: it will fall back to a synchronous save path if the async path is unavailable, which affects timing expectations.

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 tightly written chunks: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a return-field list. No filler, and the fallback behavior is stated early.

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?

There is no output schema, so the inline Returns block usefully documents the response shape, and annotations cover the mutation safety profile. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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% with 3 params, so the schema already documents slot_name, user_index and save_game_class semantics. The description names the slot concept and echoes slot_name/user_index in the return block but adds no new parameter meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (save a SaveGame instance to a slot) and adds the async/fallback mechanism, which distinguishes it from the sibling save_game. It does not explicitly name save_game or save_game_to_memory as the alternatives, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'sync fallback over AsyncSaveGameToSlot' implies when this tool is appropriate (when the async path is preferred), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling save tools. Usage must be inferred.

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