hub_save

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool requires a Discord sign-in, opens a dialog, and depends on the user to complete a captcha and click Save — making the interactive, non-deterministic nature clear. It does not mention failure modes or what happens on cancel, but the main behavioral traits are well covered.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important user-interaction requirement follows immediately in the second sentence.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the target action, the required user authentication, and the interactive final step. It does not describe timeout or cancellation behavior, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity and the clear interactive caveat.

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 should compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It only says 'name and notes filled,' which maps the two params to dialog fields but adds little beyond their names. It does not clarify that name is required while notes are optional, and the phrasing could even imply both are mandatory.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it pushes the current plan and opens the site's save dialog with prefilled fields. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like plan_save or hub_import because it names the exact interaction with the hub site's save UI.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to push the current plan to the site and save it. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like plan_save, and it does not state when not to use it or what prerequisites must hold beyond the Discord sign-in requirement.

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