sky_save

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output format (.tbsky archive), but it omits file-write behavior an agent would want, such as whether an existing file at path is overwritten or whether parent directories must exist.

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 no filler. It is efficient, though slightly too terse for a tool with an undocumented optional parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a file-writing tool with two parameters at 0% schema coverage the description leaves too much open: the role of 'ref', what 'path' points to, and overwrite behavior are all unstated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The required 'path' is only indirectly implied by 'archive', and the optional 'ref' parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving its meaning and default semantics completely undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Save the sky as a .tbsky archive'), which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like sky_get and sky_load. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from scene_save, so it does not reach a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus sky_load or scene_save, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The save-vs-load distinction is only implied by the name 'save'.

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