save_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal key traits: 'create/overwrite' indicates potential overwriting of existing files, and the warning 'Can change panel behavior' highlights a significant side effect. However, it omits other details like permission requirements or reversibility, making it minimally transparent.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a warning emoji. Every word adds value—'Save (create/overwrite)' clarifies the operation, and 'Can change panel behavior' is a high-impact caution. There is zero filler or 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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the core action and a critical side effect. It could arguably include what happens after saving (e.g., reload behavior) or specify file paths, but the warning and overwrite note provide sufficient context for a basic save operation. Sibling tools like list_configs and get_config imply that saving is one part of a larger workflow.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters (name and content), so the schema already provides adequate descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states, so the score matches the baseline of 3.

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 tool's action ('Save (create/overwrite)') and resource ('config file'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like save_script and list/get_config by specifying config file creation/overwriting. The 'create/overwrite' also clarifies the exact behavior.

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 implies usage when a config file needs to be saved, but provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or alternatives. The warning 'Can change panel behavior' signals caution but does not address when not to use the tool or compare to similar tools. Thus, usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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