save_database

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool saves a database; it does not explain what saving entails, whether it overwrites existing state, whether it requires an open database, or what errors may occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, the resource, and the scope ('active GUI or idalib database') efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, the lack of annotations and the presence of lifecycle siblings like open_database and close_database suggest that a bit more context about prerequisites or effects would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that instance_id is optional and that omission targets the current database. The description adds little beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the parameter meaning is already fully documented.

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 names a specific action ('save') and a specific resource ('active GUI or idalib database'), so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling lifecycle tools such as open_database, close_database, and list_databases.

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 phrase 'active ... database' implies the tool should be used on a database that is already open or targeted, which gives some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of close_database, when saving is necessary, or what happens if no active database exists.

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