ass_save_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: partial-failure tolerance, with in-memory-only documents routed to skipped rather than aborting the call. It omits permission/auth requirements and the fact that saving overwrites files on disk, which leaves some behavioral ground uncovered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the failure semantics follow logically. The inline return-structure block is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, and the closing 'Line indices are 0-based' sentence does not earn its place in a parameterless save tool.

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 definition is complete enough: zero parameters, an output schema that already documents the return shape, and prose covering the important edge case (skipped vs errors). Adding auth/permission requirements would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The trailing 'Line indices are 0-based' remark is irrelevant since no parameter or line is involved here.

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), resource (every open document), and scope qualifier (that has a known path). The batch scope makes it unambiguous versus the single-document sibling ass_save without needing to name it.

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 'every open document' framing clearly implies batch-save usage versus ass_save for one document. However, it never explicitly names ass_save as the alternative or states when a batch save is preferable, so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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