main_save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses path resolution rules, the workspace policy, automatic .mdl extension, and filesystem verification with file_exists/file_size. It could also mention overwrite behavior, but the provided behavior is substantive.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds needed detail: Save As semantics, path policy, extension handling, verification, and locator usage. There is no filler.

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 mutating save tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: destination resolution, policy constraint, extension appending, and success verification. Minor gaps remain around overwrite behavior and exact response shape, but the description is largely complete.

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 67% and the action parameter is not described in the schema. The description compensates by clarifying that Save takes no arg, that arg is only for Save As, and by adding .mdl handling and path policy meaning beyond the schema text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save an IC-CAP object to disk.' It clearly separates Save As from Save, and the sibling list contains no other save-equivalent tool, so this is 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 description explains destination handling for Save As, notes that Save takes no arg, and instructs when to use locator='/' versus a model path. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the context is clear.

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