save_model

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: code can be procedures-only or full XML, envelope is added automatically, and widgets follow create_model schema. However, it does not mention whether it overwrites existing files, permission requirements, or any side effects beyond saving.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each serving a clear purpose. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides usage context for desktop visualization. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the main aspects: saving to a specific directory, automatic envelope addition, and widget schema. However, it lacks information on overwrite behavior, error handling, or success indicators, which might be relevant.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: clarifications for code (procedures vs. XML, automatic envelope), name (without extension), and widgets (relationship to create_model, caution about globals). This enriches understanding of parameter 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 clearly states the tool's action: saving NetLogo model code to a .nlogox file in the models directory. The verb 'save' and resource 'model code' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like create_model or update_model by focusing on saving to file for desktop use, though not explicitly differentiating from all siblings.

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 implicitly suggests usage when you want to open the model in the NetLogo desktop app for live visualization. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like create_model or update_model, nor mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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