Save a playbook

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it writes to a specific path (~/.wpxmcp/skills), is loaded by load_skill, and overrides bundled skills with the same name. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the purpose with concrete examples, the second specifies storage and loading, and the third notes override behavior. Every sentence adds unique value with no repetition or fluff.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, storage location, relationship to load_skill, and override behavior. It does not describe return values, but that is not required without an output schema, and the annotations already cover safety characteristics.

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%, and the schema provides clear descriptions for all 5 parameters (including examples for name and keywords). The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already captures, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 saves a playbook (skill) to persist conventions, with concrete examples of what those conventions could be. It distinguishes itself from siblings like load_skill and delete_skill by explicitly naming the storage location and the loading mechanism, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 when to use the tool: to persist a playbook for future sessions. It references load_skill as the counterpart that loads the saved skill, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives, though the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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