app-preferences_save

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states the action without revealing side effects (e.g., overwriting existing preferences, persistence scope, or potential irreversible changes). The description adds no information beyond what the tool name suggests, leaving the agent unclear about the impact.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the key information and does not waste words. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with no parameters, output schema, or collaborators to consider, the description is sufficient to convey the core functionality. It could optionally mention persistence side effects, but given the low complexity, the one-liner is mostly complete. The distinction from app-preferences_summary is implicit but clear.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no fields to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly focuses on the action. It adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given the absence of parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Save') and the resource ('current Blender user preferences'), making it distinct from siblings like app-preferences_summary (which reads preferences) and app-file_save (which saves files). The verb+resource pattern is explicit and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to persist current user preferences) but provides no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternatives. For a simple tool, the context is obvious, but it does not mention any scenarios where it should not be used or contrast with similar save operations.

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