Mne Save

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving and naming rules, but omits overwrite behavior (overwrite defaults to true in the schema), error handling for existing files or unsupported formats, and any potential side effects. The phrase 'Other formats follow the object's .save() support' hints at limits but does not disclose concrete consequences.

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 description is only two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and filename conventions compactly listed. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given zero annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description alone is insufficient for correct invocation. It covers naming conventions but leaves parameter semantics and overwrite behavior underspecified. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the main usage gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, but it only indirectly addresses filename conventions. It does not clarify what `name` refers to, what `path` should contain beyond a file name, or the meaning and effect of `overwrite`. The naming rules provide some context for constructing paths, but not enough for confident invocation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Save') and the resource ('a session object to disk'), and adds specific MNE filename conventions for Raw, Epochs, and Evoked. It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are save operations.

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 naming rules imply when this tool is appropriate, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any excluded object types. It gives file-format context rather than actionable selection guidance.

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