atlas_save_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that invalid YAML is not saved, that concurrent modification is rejected via expected_sha256 (preventing silent overwrite), and that it is zero-cost. It omits any permission/auth requirements, which keeps it short of a 5.

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-loads the core action and path, then layers the validation gate, create/update conditions, and return values in short, load-bearing clauses. Minimal waste; the parenthetical '零成本' earns its place.

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, yet the description still adds return semantics (file_sha256 reused for next update, spec_fingerprint), which is genuinely useful. Failure modes and concurrency behavior are covered; only auth/permission context 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains expected_sha256 thoroughly (last-read file hash, optional for create) and implies workflow_id via the file path, but the yaml parameter's content/format is never described.

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 (save), the exact resource and destination path (workflows/<workflow_id>.yaml), and the precondition that only validated YAML is persisted. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like atlas_validate_workflow or atlas_run_workflow immediately.

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?

Clearly separates the two usage modes: new creation requires an unoccupied id, while update requires passing expected_sha256. It does not explicitly name atlas_validate_workflow as the prerequisite step, but the '校验通过的 YAML' framing makes the workflow order clear.

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