save_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it saves results, but does not disclose side effects such as overwriting existing files, whether a run is created if none exists, permissions required, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's function without any filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, satisfying the conciseness criterion.

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?

Given that the tool has a nested object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'PeakInfer history' is, how the path is used, what happens on success, or how this integrates with sibling tools like analyze. The contextual information is insufficient for reliable tool selection and use.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (path default, analysis format), so schema coverage is 100%, reaching the baseline of 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'save analysis results,' which does not clarify the InferenceMap format or the path resolution behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 specific action ('Save') and its resource ('analysis results') with a destination ('PeakInfer history'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze, which likely runs analyses, and the get_* tools, which retrieve external data. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It does not mention that it should be used after an analysis is performed, nor does it explain when to prefer saving over other actions. The sibling context implies a workflow but the description itself offers no usage direction.

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