save_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns about side effects: 'ZPRJ save may change the active project path', 'May change scene or write files', and requires verification ('Verify resulting state'). It also handles timeout uncertainty clearly: 'A timed-out operation is UNKNOWN: reconcile_operation before any retry.' This is thorough transparency for a mutation operation.

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 compact yet information-dense. The main purpose is stated first, followed by key constraints, side effects, and a failure-handling instruction. Each sentence earns its place without fluff or repetition. The structure is logically ordered: purpose → constraints → side effects → verification → timeout handling.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what it does, what to avoid (existing outputs), side effects, required verification, and timeout behavior. It gives the agent enough to safely invoke the tool and handle failures. The lack of return-value details is acceptable given no output schema and the verification instruction.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'path' parameter. The description compensates by specifying 'Requires a new absolute output path', which adds crucial semantics: the path must be new (not existing) and absolute. This goes beyond the schema's bare string type and gives the agent actionable guidance. It doesn't add format details like file extension, but the core meaning is covered.

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 a new ZPRJ checkpoint and verify file.' It uses a precise verb ('Save') and resource ('ZPRJ checkpoint'), which distinguishes it from generic operations. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the phrasing is specific enough to avoid confusion with export/import or checkpoint management tools.

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 provides constraints ('Requires a new absolute output path', 'Existing outputs are protected') but no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like export_project or create_checkpoint. It doesn't name any sibling tools or explain scenarios where this should be preferred. The timeout handling instruction is useful but not about usage selection.

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