Save / load component (.tox)

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

Annotations indicate a mutating but non-destructive tool. The description clearly states save and load operations, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files on save or naming conflicts on load. More detail on these behaviors would improve transparency.

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, well-structured sentence with a parenthetical clarification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes meaning. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main actions and key differentiation (linked vs independent), but is vague on return values, error handling, and behavior on file conflicts. Given complexity, more detail is warranted.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds important context about local paths and the 'linked' option, but the schema already documents each parameter well, so the description adds marginal extra value.

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 explicitly states the tool saves or loads a COMP as a .tox file, with clear verbs ('save', 'load') and resource ('component/.tox file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on component library management rather than creation or manipulation of individual nodes.

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 explains when to use save vs load, and highlights the live-linked option via 'linked'. It provides context that paths are on the local machine. However, it does not explicitly exclude when not to use this tool (e.g., for creating new components from scratch) or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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