save_dirty_assets

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states persisting to disk (destructive write), but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting files, permission requirements, or what happens if assets are already saved. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second provides analogy and context, third lists parameters. No unnecessary information.

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?

No output schema, and description does not mention return value or success/failure indicators. It also does not clarify if all dirty assets or only those matching the boolean parameters are saved, nor what happens if no dirty assets exist.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description only notes they default to true, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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?

Description clearly states it persists in-memory modified assets to disk, uses the analogy 'Same as editor Save All', and explains the context of closing the gap after mutation tools. The verb 'Persist' and resource 'in-memory-modified asset + map' are specific and distinct from siblings.

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?

Description explicitly says this tool should be used after edit-side tools that mutate UObjects but leave them dirty, providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or compare to any alternative save tools among siblings, which are absent.

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