Save / load component (.tox)

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

Annotations already indicate write-capable and destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail: save uses a deferred, verified same-directory temporary export and refuses overwrite by default, with an optional 'ask' policy; load retains legacy behavior. It also notes paths are on the local machine, clarifying the execution context beyond annotations.

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 compact, with each sentence covering a distinct aspect: purpose, save behavior, load behavior, and path location. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently structured without redundancy.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral nuances (overwrite, deferred export, local paths) while leaving parameter details to the schema. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope and operation, though it could mention idempotency or linked behavior for extra clarity.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 11 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds context by explaining the overwrite_policy semantics, the deferred export tied to operation_timeout_ms, and native consent tied to confirmation_timeout_ms. This supplements the schema meaningfully.

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 tool moves COMPs to/from .tox files, with explicit 'save' and 'load' actions. It uses specific verbs (save, load, build) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on .tox file operations for building a reusable component library.

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 the two actions and their behaviors, giving context for when to use each. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer another tool, such as manage_component_storage or export_palette_component. Usage is implied but not fully explicit.

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