save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool 'Reports invalid required fields and server errors,' which is a behavioral trait beyond the name. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence specifics, or whether saving overwrites existing data.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, with no filler. The only slight weakness is the abrupt fragment 'timeout in ms,' which is informative but not well-integrated. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is usable: an agent can invoke it with defaults. However, the meaning of 'scope' is missing, and there is no guidance on when to use it relative to alternatives. The gaps are significant but not critical for a default invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for the timeout parameter ('timeout in ms') and leaves the scope parameter completely unexplained. This is partial compensation at best, and insufficient for an agent to understand valid scope values or behavior.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Save the current form (or the open form dialog).' It also adds behavioral specifics about reporting invalid fields and server errors, which differentiates it from siblings like open_record, set_field, or click_button. Even though the name is generic, the description makes the purpose 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 phrase 'Save the current form (or the open form dialog)' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to pick. It does not name sibling tools or rival approaches, so an agent must infer usage from context.

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