save_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it correctly discloses that this is a write/mutation of startup-config and that it requires privileged exec, which is genuinely useful context. However it omits that the copy overwrites the existing startup-config, whether the change is reversible, and what happens if privilege level is insufficient.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the source, destination, and mechanism with zero filler. Every element earns its place and the most important information (what gets copied where) comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameterless schema means no argument documentation is required. The description covers the effect and the privilege requirement, leaving only minor behavioral caveats (overwrite semantics, failure mode) unstated.

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 there is no parameter meaning to convey and the definition is inherently complete on this dimension. Baseline of 4 applies since no gap exists to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and both resources ('Copy running-config to startup-config') and even names the underlying mechanism ('sending the privileged exec command save'). Nothing about the operation is ambiguous, and no sibling tool (poe_set, port_set_admin_state, show) could be mistaken for it.

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 effect is stated clearly enough that an agent can infer the use case (persisting the running config), but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisite statement beyond the parenthetical hint at privileged exec, and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it.

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