observability_save_bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It notes that out_dir is validated against an allowlist, system directories are rejected, and the directory is created if missing. The overwrite parameter's default behavior is also explained. It doesn't mention auth or failure modes, but covers the key safety aspects for a file write operation.

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 concisely structured as a docstring with a clear summary and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description is complete for a file-writing tool. It explains the input thoroughly, including validation constraints and default behavior. No additional information seems necessary.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate fully. It explains each parameter: out_dir as an absolute path to the bundle root, files as a mapping of relative paths to content, and overwrite with its default refusal to overwrite existing files. This adds essential meaning beyond the minimal schema.

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 that the tool persists a bundle's file map to disk, using the specific verb 'persist' and referencing the related tool 'observability_generate_bundle'. It distinguishes itself by specifying the source of the files map and the validation of the destination directory, which sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 provides clear context by referencing the source of the files map (from observability_generate_bundle) and the allowlist validation similar to cfg_save_session. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it.

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