save_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals the useful scope detail that only *changed* assets are written, but says nothing about whether this is a destructive/irreversible disk write, whether it can fail or partially fail, whether new unsaved assets are included, or what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier ("changed," "active mod") is packed into the same clause. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is only minimally sufficient for a state-mutating batch operation. An agent can act on it, but it lacks error behavior, confirmation of what success looks like, and any hint about side effects on disk.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no user input is needed.

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?

"Save every changed asset in the active mod" states a specific verb (save) and resource (changed assets) with a clear scope qualifier (active mod). It is distinguishable from siblings like `set_properties` or `package_mod`, though it never explicitly names how it differs from them.

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 offers no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives or prerequisites. There is no mention of when saving is appropriate (e.g., before `package_mod`/`validate_mod`) or whether unsaved edits must exist first.

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