save_macro

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions parameter substitution syntax. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Create or update'), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing macros), error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive impact.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create or update a macro') and adds a useful detail about parameter syntax. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects: behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error conditions), output expectations, or usage context relative to siblings. The parameter syntax hint is helpful but insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by explaining parameter substitution syntax ('{param_name}'), which relates to the 'parameters' field but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create or update') and resource ('a macro'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_macro' or 'run_macro'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_macro' or explain the create vs update logic, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_macro' or 'run_macro'. The description mentions parameter substitution syntax but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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