save_tileset_catalog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key constraint: 'Generated engine facts cannot be overwritten by catalog claims', which informs the agent about immutability. It also implies validation occurs before saving, though it does not detail error handling or return behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then input modes and a constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage, input modes, and an important constraint. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a save operation this is not a critical omission. The description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two input modes: incremental arrays (entries, objects, autotiles) versus the complete catalog JSON, which helps the agent understand how to populate the parameters. It does not rehash schema descriptions but complements them.

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 'Validate and save reviewed semantic findings for a tileset' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tileset_catalog and validate_tileset_catalog. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys the core function.

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 it accepts 'incremental tile/object/autotile arrays or the complete catalog JSON exported by the review page', indicating this is the save step after a review. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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