maltego_save_graph

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive hints. The description adds context about default path behavior (re-saves to original path) and mentions opening the file in Maltego CE, going beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with a headline, body, and Args list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 write tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameters, behavior (default path), and return value (absolute path or error). No major gaps.

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%, but the description compensates with an Args section explaining both parameters: path (defaults to original source) and graph_name (defaults to active). This adds meaning beyond parameter names.

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 clearly states it saves a graph to a .mtgx file, distinguishing it from export tools like maltego_export_csv or maltego_export_json. It specifies verb (save), resource (graph), and format (.mtgx), with details about active vs named graph.

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 is implied by the format specification and mention of opening in Maltego CE, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., export functions) or when not to use it.

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