mne_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal disk-writing behavior and naming rules, but it fails to mention overwrite semantics (especially since 'overwrite' defaults to true) or potential errors from unsupported .save() formats. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler. Each sentence contributes meaningful information: the action, the naming conventions, and the fallback behavior.

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 simple save tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves gaps around parameter meanings and overwrite/error behavior. The naming rules add useful context, yet the overall picture is not fully self-contained.

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%, and the description does not explicitly define 'name', 'path', or 'overwrite'. The MNE naming rules give indirect hints about how file names are derived, but they do not clarify the required path construction or the effect of the overwrite flag, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 tool saves a session object to disk and gives specific MNE naming conventions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are primarily analysis/plotting operations, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 description provides contextual guidance by explaining the expected file naming patterns for different session object types, which helps the agent know how to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but no sibling tool serves the same save purpose.

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