Save

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by explaining the user confirmation prompt, that the call can be slow/blocking, that it reports saved-vs-cancelled, and that a .backup is written before each file's first save. That is exactly the extra context the annotation does not carry.

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 action is front-loaded and each sentence adds usable information (fallback, confirmation, backup, prerequisite). The aside about the app's Claude menu is slightly convoluted and the confirmation clause runs long, but no sentence is 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the return signal (saved or cancelled), side effects (backups), and preconditions (check_skin). It does not address failure or error behavior, which is the only remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter meaning is missing or misrepresented.

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?

"Saves every unsaved change into the skin folder" states a concrete verb and target, and the parenthetical fallback (downloads where the browser can't write) clarifies the resource boundary. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_changes or check_skin without opening any schema.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite in "Run check_skin first" and describes the confirmation gate the user must clear. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to save, but the sequencing guidance is concrete.

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