auto_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether saved preferences are merged or overwritten, whether duplicate tags accumulate, what permissions or scope enforcement applies at save time, or what the tool returns. 'Auto' implies no confirmation prompt, but that is the only inferable trait.

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?

A single sentence with the imperative directive front-loaded in brackets followed by the resource. Nothing is wasted. It is slightly terse for a tool with behavioral ambiguity, but structurally clean.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say more about the result of a save and how it interacts with the retrieval siblings. With zero annotation coverage and only two optional parameters, the definition is minimally adequate but leaves the persistence model opaque.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented (extra_tags, and preferences with scope=user / cross-project semantics). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: save (自动保存) user preferences. The purpose is unambiguous on its own. However, it makes no attempt to differentiate from the sibling 'remember', which plausibly stores the same kind of information, so the agent cannot tell the two apart from the description alone.

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?

Provides an explicit timing directive (must be invoked before every conversation ends), which is more than most tools offer. But it gives no alternatives or exclusions — with siblings like remember and forget, it never says when NOT to use this or how it relates to them, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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