bridge_save_increment

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

There are no annotations, so the description itself must carry the behavioral information. It does this well by stating the operation is 'SAFE', structurally refuses to overwrite an existing file, and writes a new incrementing filename (Show.<N+1>.toe).

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core behavior ('SAFE save'), then gives the file naming rule, the overwrite guarantee, the preferred usage, and the timeout parameter. No filler.

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 tool with one optional parameter, the description provides all essential context: what it does, how it names files, why it is safe, when it should be used, and the parameter's meaning/default. No output schema exists, so no missing return-value expectation.

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?

The schema provides only a bare timeout parameter with no description, so the description adds meaning by explaining it is a wait duration in seconds and giving an effective default of 45. It could also explain what happens on timeout.

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 a concrete action: write the next numbered Show.<N+1>.toe file, safely. It explicitly highlights that it refuses to overwrite existing files, which distinguishes it from a generic save or overwrite tool.

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?

It clearly positions the tool as 'the preferred way to persist bridge edits,' giving the agent a strong usage signal. It does not explicitly describe alternatives or exclusions, so it is not a full 5, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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