model_save_version

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the file creation behavior, including the exact path structure and the creation of a 'latest' copy. It mentions the return value (confirmation with path or error). It does not detail overwrite behavior for the 'latest' copy or permissions, but covers the core actions adequately.

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 well-structured with a clear action statement, path details, usage note, argument list, and return value. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant sentences.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, arguments, behavior, and return value. It could mention error handling or directory creation, but overall provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'model_name' is the name to save (default current model), and 'description' is optional metadata. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type and default info.

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 model with a timestamp version suffix, creating structured versioned files and a 'latest' copy. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'model_save' by adding versioning functionality, and mentions version control and design iterations as use cases.

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 notes the tool is 'useful for version control and design iterations', implying when to use it over a plain save. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'model_save', though the context is clear.

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