rws_save_program

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether existing files at the target path are overwritten, whether mastership is required, whether the program must be stopped, or what happens on partial failure. It only confirms the operation is a write to controller disk and the transport is RWS.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and usage detail noted elsewhere.

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 filesystem-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out overwrite behavior, permissions/mastership requirements, and controller-state prerequisites. The parameters are documented by the schema, but the operational context an agent needs to call this safely is absent.

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 100%, and the schema already gives examples for both `path` ('$HOME/mybackup') and `task` ('T_ROB1'). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Save) and resource (entire RAPID program) plus the destination (a directory on the controller) and transport (RWS). An agent can tell this apart from module-level writes like rws_write_module, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named rs_save_station.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus rws_write_module, rws_write_file, or rs_save_station, and no prerequisites such as requiring mastership or a stopped execution state. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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