session_save

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent), so the description earns credit by adding genuinely new behavior: audio is collected alongside the file, and a new filename renames the project itself. Those are real side effects an agent would not infer from the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destination semantics front-loaded and the non-overwrite caveat trailing as a qualifier. Every clause carries information.

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 two-optional-param save tool with no output schema, the description covers destination, renaming, audio handling, and overwrite protection. It does not say what happens on failure or what the call returns, which is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: passing a new name changes the project's identity, not just the write target. That is a semantic consequence of 'path' beyond 'Absolute .omni path'.

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 (Save) and resource (the project), plus two destinations: its own file or an absolute .omni path. No sibling tool performs a save, so there is nothing to disambiguate against, but the scope is unmistakable.

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 conditional clause 'Does not overwrite another existing file unless asked' tells the agent when the overwrite path applies, and the default-to-own-file behavior sets the no-argument baseline. It does not spell out prerequisites (e.g. unsaved changes), so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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