save_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool saves state but doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (overwrites existing saves), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details following. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and parameter semantics. It could be slightly more structured but remains efficient without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral details like side effects or error conditions, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'slot' is a 'Save slot number (1-9)', providing range constraints and purpose that aren't in the schema. With only one parameter, this compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover default values or other nuances.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('emulator state'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'load_state' and 'get_game_state'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_battle_state' or 'get_party', which are read operations rather than write operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active emulator session), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'load_state' for restoring saved states. Usage is implied only by the action described, with no explicit context.

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