live_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key distinction between overwriting the current file and creating a new version that preserves the old one, but it says nothing about permission requirements, overwrite risk on the default path, error behavior, or what the call returns.

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 sentence that leads with the primary action and then the conditional branch. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and every clause adds 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?

For a one-optional-boolean tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers both execution paths and the rationale for each. Only minor gaps remain, such as failure behavior and the requirement that a song be open.

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 sole parameter, and it does: new_version corresponds to 'save it as a new version ... to keep the old one', while the default path overwrites the current file. That is enough meaning for the agent to set the boolean correctly, though it never names the flag itself.

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 the open Studio One song) and enumerates the two modes it maps to, File/Save and File/Save New Version. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like live_undo, live_redo, or live_command, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies which mode to pick by explaining that the new-version path exists 'to keep the old one', so the agent can infer intent from the new_version flag. It gives no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites (a song must be open), and no mention of alternatives such as live_command for arbitrary actions.

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