cmw_save_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the basic save action but omits important behavioral details such as file overwrite behavior, file location, whether the .json extension is auto-added, and whether a connection to the CMW500 is required. This is a meaningful gap for a state-changing tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and readable, earning full marks for structure.

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 no output schema, no annotations, four parameters, and two undocumented params, the description is too terse to be complete. It does not explain the file naming convention, host/port usage, return value, or relationship to loading state, leaving critical context unresolved.

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 input schema documents only notes and filename; host and port have no descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance and does not compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap. A user/agent is left guessing the purpose of host and port.

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?

Description is specific: 'Save current CMW500 state to file' clearly identifies the verb (save), resource (CMW500 state), and destination (file). It distinguishes from the sibling tool cmw_load_state, making 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?

Usage context is implied (use when you want to persist the current instrument state), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like cmw_load_state or cmw_list_templates. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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