config_save

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it addresses only part of it. It does not say whether saving overwrites an existing file or what a failed validation does, and it never explains that expected_sha256 is a concurrency guard against stale writes. The revision rule it states is useful, but mutation and safety semantics are missing.

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?

Two sentences, with the action and its timing stated first, and no wasted words. The second sentence is dense and its phrase 'config/output/scene revision' is left unexplained, which slightly weakens clarity but not length.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested free-form payload, zero parameter documentation, and no annotations. Even though an output schema exists, the description omits the return contract, failure behavior, and overwrite semantics. For a save operation with a concurrency token, it does not tell the agent enough to call the tool confidently.

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% across all three required parameters. The description never explains that config_path identifies the target, what shape the nested, free-form data object is expected to have, or that expected_sha256 is the precondition hash. This leaves an agent to work out the most important write parameters entirely from the schema structure.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: it validates and saves a config draft. That is much clearer than the bare name. However, it does not distinguish 'save' from the sibling tool config_validate, so the agent cannot tell from this description alone why it would choose one over the other.

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?

'before any scene generation' implies the timing for this call, and 'changed scenes require a new config/output/scene revision' hints at a precondition. Beyond that, the description gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not route to config_validate, or to config_read, stage_start, or the other siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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