Save result to Library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely new fact — the job must be finished — but says nothing about duplicate saves, overwrite behavior, auth requirements, or whether saving consumes/relocates the job result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destination and the optional folder qualification are both stated up front. Nothing here is redundant with the title.

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-parameter write tool with no output schema and clean annotations, the description covers the happy path adequately. It is still missing the failure/edge semantics an agent would want — behavior when the job is unfinished, when the folder does not exist, or when the result was already saved.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does clarify that the folder target is optional ('optionally into a folder'), matching folderId being non-required. It adds nothing about what jobId accepts (job id format, finished-vs-running) and does not explain the consequence of omitting folderId.

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 and resource ('Save a finished job result') plus the destination ('into the Library'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like axcel_library_move, axcel_download_job and axcel_library_list. It does not explicitly name a sibling it must not be confused with, but the verb+resource+target combination is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'finished job result' implies the precondition that the job must already be complete, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over axcel_download_job or axcel_library_move, nor what to do if the job is still running.

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