Save worlds

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

Annotations already establish non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context by naming the required permission ('Needs server:control'), but it omits whether the save is synchronous/blocking, how long it may take, or what happens to in-flight writes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and immediacy front-loaded and the permission requirement trailing as a constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter mutation the description is mostly adequate on the action and permission, but it leaves the only parameter unexplained and actively implies a behavior (always saving player data) that the `players` flag can override. With no output schema and no parameter docs anywhere, an agent cannot confidently decide whether to pass `players=false`.

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 explain the single `players` boolean, and it does not. Worse, 'Save every world, and player data, to disk now' reads as unconditional, which can mislead an agent into thinking player data is always saved even when `players` is set to false; the default of true and the toggle semantics are left entirely 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save every world, and player data, to disk') plus immediacy ('now'), which is enough for an agent to know exactly what it does. No sibling tool has overlapping purpose, so explicit differentiation is unnecessary, but it also doesn't mention the nearest risky neighbor (restart_server), keeping it just shy of 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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of when not to call it (e.g., during shutdown or before restart), and no note about frequency or cost of flushing to disk. The word 'now' vaguely implies an immediate persistence request, but that is inference, not guidance.

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