venom_save_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the gating verification pipeline (parse, validate, Z3), the target path, and the non-activation guarantee. It omits failure behavior (what happens on a failed verification) and whether it overwrites an existing draft.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by an Args block; every sentence earns its place except the note line, which slightly pads the count. Structure is easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The gaps are failure handling on verification failure and draft-overwrite semantics, which matter for a write tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must document parameters, and it does: agent_id, csl_content, note, and workspace each get a one-line meaning. It does not cover defaults (note and workspace default to empty string) or the expected format/length constraints.

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 names a specific verb chain (verify then save) and a precise resource (CSL draft to .csl/venom/drafts/). It also explicitly states the boundary that separates it from activation, which no sibling tool covers. An agent can route confidently.

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?

Clear conditional usage: save only after parse/validate/Z3 pass, and never activate. It does not name sibling alternatives like verify_policy or simulate_policy, so the agent must infer when to prefer those over this tool.

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